Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I suspect that Frontier have had many unsolicited private suggestions from many players over the years - and will have chosen to act on some of them.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
I expect so- the difference is acting on them is down to when they were suggested. In this case it was at the right time for the area they were working on.
But thats not really the point- to you the change was just a change, but you did not know the reason or trigger for that change.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Do any of us outside of Frontier know the provenance of every single change to the game?
Of course not. But the change I described was not mentioned at all on this forum, just as other things like Powerplay changes and proposals not being here.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Actual changes or possible changes that didn't make the cut? Especially in term so of Powerplay 2.0....
All this "we want Open Only this-and-that" crying from a (very small but extremely loud) crew is, quite frankly, dumb.
You are pushing for a change of the very base foundation of ED, a core principle. Which is written in stone here. For your whims.
And you're wrong if you think you can mask a plea for moar victims with some PP reasoning - which was refuted over and over here.
So much wasted effort and pages and pages... for something that was clear all these 10 years will not happen. Utterly unrealistic.
And you missed to push one thing that might sate the craving for fighting humans and yaargh and all that: a new CQC.
New CQC where you can bring your own ship, equipped the way you want, and face the rest of the willing PvPers, all consensual. Everything is full anarchy mode, everything goes. Win-win-win for all. "Make us a new QCQ Ragnarok". For everybody who wants to combat other players. With adequate ships of their own. With braggingboards and rewards 'n stuff.
That idea, if pushed hard (as you pushed this impossibiru one), might work.
(of course, if you merely want to camp and kill weak & soft traders/explorers, defenseless against your murderboats, then we're clear on your true motive - and you will not get Open Only anything)
You are pushing for a change of the very base foundation of ED, a core principle. Which is written in stone here. For your whims.
And you're wrong if you think you can mask a plea for moar victims with some PP reasoning - which was refuted over and over here.
So much wasted effort and pages and pages... for something that was clear all these 10 years will not happen. Utterly unrealistic.
And you missed to push one thing that might sate the craving for fighting humans and yaargh and all that: a new CQC.
New CQC where you can bring your own ship, equipped the way you want, and face the rest of the willing PvPers, all consensual. Everything is full anarchy mode, everything goes. Win-win-win for all. "Make us a new QCQ Ragnarok". For everybody who wants to combat other players. With adequate ships of their own. With braggingboards and rewards 'n stuff.
That idea, if pushed hard (as you pushed this impossibiru one), might work.
(of course, if you merely want to camp and kill weak & soft traders/explorers, defenseless against your murderboats, then we're clear on your true motive - and you will not get Open Only anything)
Last edited:
71 pages of.... well, wasted effort?
Its not happening guys. FD said "not at launch", and i presume we all know what that means in FD speak.
Its not happening guys. FD said "not at launch", and i presume we all know what that means in FD speak.
I can kill for a cheesecake, not baked of course.
Nothings ever wasted, its fun to talk about and homes in on problems in the topic as well as the game.
Now its a case of waiting and hoping V2 has PvE gameplay that evens out the modes, rather than amplifying the differences.
I meant in terms of campaigning to make it happen.
As for PvE that will even out the modes... not sure how you think that might work.
All it’ll take for the modes to be “even” is to have NPCs that can reliably challenge the top 1% of combat players show up (edit: in all game modes) about 0.3% of the time to simulate the odds of being instanced with another PowerPlayer under normal conditions. We very other time, you’re dealing with normal NPCs, which can reliably challenge the median player, but don’t stand a chance against a combat oriented player in a maxxed out combat ship.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... in all game modes, not just Solo and Private Groups (as some don't regularly instance with other players even in Open).
Edited accordingly… though won’t that just make Open even more deadly for those who face both the more “dangerous” NPCs and then deliberately maximize their chances of PvP on top of that?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It would, very likely more often than not, provide the only effective challenge for those currently very nearly safe from all harm in their meta-engineered combat ships (the existence of whom is used to somewhat ironically justify making NPCs more challenging all the time for all players just because those players may at times exist in game).Edited accordingly… though won’t that just make Open even more deadly for those who face both the more “dangerous” NPCs and then deliberately maximize their chances of PvP on top of that?
One of those showing up for anyone outside that top 1% of players and outright horrible for the top 70%-80%-ish of players. Still, as long as they don't get those beam rails that happened all those years ago.
Its easy enough, most if not all of it is in game right now but needs bringing together so that it all has context.
The essential ingredient (as Darkfyre points out) is to challenge the top end but in reality its make a difficulty curve that rewards risk taking and grows with players.
Ah, if the NPCs properly scaled with mission risk/reward, yes, that would help. Darkfyre made it sound random. Then players can choose the risk/reward profile they want, with the biggest rewards having really nasty NPCs.
Yes, exactly.
The problem with PvE is that for the loops in PP you rarely allow for the roving NPCs to mix with you.
One example is end points being stations, with drop zones being so close NPC pursuit is clamped to SC. My 'solution' would be using hidden trader like mechanics- you scan the NAV for the POI, go to the POI (which is in a random location) and fly near the recipient ship. By using hidden traders it then makes it a risk dropping to a NAV (where rivals might be), you dealing with interdictions (like normal) but also the possibility of having to deal with enemies in the hidden trader POI itself. So some runs would be plain, others you defending your contact, some runs you fighting off attackers in SC, and so on.
In addition to that, you would be using set amount cargo missions where the more missions you stack the higher the chance of enemies coming after you.
You could mix in many other mechanics- say for example stealth. It could be that if you remain unscanned in enemy territory you are unmolested, and that when discovered PP NPCs drop in. Another idea I had was super dangerous spy delivery as a UM mission- you have to smuggle saboteurs and remain unscanned otherwise you are attacked.
There is a huge amount you can do with whats in game now- and to be fair with FD they know this and we can see it in FU (like PP FCs).
In my experience, PvP opposition is essentially random, unless you deliberately seek it out. Which, given the highly distributed nature of PP 2 even compared to PP v1, is failry easy to do: just avoid any obvious hot spots. Even then, the chances are slim. (Seriously, I've made numerous trips into Deciat, and only been killed once, by a base camper, and only because I didn't have the time to "play" with them.
NPC difficulty does scale with mission risk/reward. If I'm doing a high-risk black box recovery mission in my normal ship, I'm not going to stick around and fight the opposition, and more than once I've been chased off by the numerous NPC ships who are there. Doing it this way is a lot of fun, because there's a chance of failure, but it requires me not optimizing my ship to that retrieval mission. Which is something I rarely do outside of Buckyball Racing, because I want to have fun, and not be bored out of my skull.
And that's the problem with this game in a nutshell: Frontier has created a game where ships can heavily optimize defense, and players can complete just about any mission without endangering themselves with the right build. Frontier really should've made shields a core module, not an optional one, and prohibeted the stacking of shield boosters and banks.