Open only story arcs please

[Kzak]

We need someone to write an open-only letter.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I do like the idea of having two types of CG running in parallel. For example, a combat PvP based CG where players have to fight is specific CZ , where only kills scored in open count and anybody on the opposing side is a target. In addition that runs along side a PVE CG, where everything is counted regardless of which play mode it's in.

It's like the observation I've had for power-play. The idea is that for Expansion and Control activities, they only count if you do them in open but Preparation can be done in any mode. That way, minimal changes, everyone still has a way to earn merits and there are two specific legitimate PvP activities for people to really go at each other. As I've been finding out in Powerplay, PvP has a place and adds a little more spice to the experience and puts the Dangerous back into Elite: Dangerous.

However, at the same time, you do want an escape from always looking over your shoulder all of the time.

And this is why I support a multi mode BGS and really push for some optional features to be Open only. That way everyone gets an experience they want, not just solo scaled up.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

If it was open only, you'd get less of a game, but I guess you're on pc and don't have to pay a premium to play open. Absolutely no consideration for other players whatsoever. Again. If people want open only, why can't they go play WoW or eveonline? I'm sure they'd be welcomed there (for 5 minutes then the bleating gets really irritating)

I have no dog in this fight and I don't care about open only but I could easily say to you, why not go play Skyrim or one of the half a dozen solo space games?

You keep calling the open only crowd selfish and greedy, but aren't you being equally selfish and greedy for not wanting players that want more mmo content to have any because you want to be able to do everything solo?

I don't see what the big deal is with having some content that is open only. I'd have no problem with there being solo only content.

To me, it's the epitome of selfishness to demand that all content be playable in solo.

 

[Robert Maynard]

PvP / direct interaction requires an objective to make that interaction worthwhile. Powerplay has this potential, and so does certain events in a CG (Titan, Salome) as well as 1:1 stuff in CQC.

For those who find PvP to be fun, maybe. This game does not require the buyer to like or even tolerate PvP to participate in all in-game features, one-off prize events and player organised "chase" events specifically excepted.

You misunderstand. To get 10 million CZ bonds takes work- getting bounties takes work- getting hostile with factions / superpowers takes work. Its this effort required that means you can't fly a sidewinder and get popped.

How long would a bounty take to accrue popping a ship, piloted by a colluding player, that respawned in a Carrier instance? It does not need to be a Sidewinder.

I'm talking about just mining in general. If FD want PvP to be meaningful, then the worth of a player kill has to be higher. This can be done in numerous ways and limited to areas of CGs so its not a blanket thing and temporal. If you had a high stakes Open CG set in CZs with spec ops and other PvP players but players were worth much more, you set up a PvP situation thats worth the time- and this could be done as an Open bonus for that CG or you could have a separate 'normal' CG for people who wish to farm lower value targets.

I expect that mining remains as lucrative as it is because players need credits for Carriers - I don't see it being massively reduced in earning rate now.

If player kills were to count more then some players would collude by any means possible to earn rewards for themselves or other players to suit their goals - including non-contested encounters where the reward would be set at a level for a contested encounter. Players will exploit what they can - and Frontier learned early that they will in PvP encounters.

What does "high stakes" mean in this context?

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

While PvP is undoubtedly a part of E: D, it's not a required part of any game feature apart from CQC, "like it or not".

Combat is not a required part of ED yet there are missions that require some sort of combat. So why can't there be missions that require PvP?

 

[Robert Maynard]

You keep calling the open only crowd selfish and greedy, but aren't you being equally selfish and greedy for not wanting players that want more mmo content to have any because you want to be able to do everything solo?

Both groups bought the game - one group seeks to have existing game content PvP-gated to their preferred game mode and has been doing so for years, to no avail.

To me, it's the epitome of selfishness to demand that all content be playable in solo.

That's the way that the game is - it was not demanded, Frontier chose to make it that way. Of course CQC, Wings and Multi-crew aren't available in Solo - however those are not required to engage in any in-game feature.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Combat is not a required part of ED yet there are missions that require some sort of combat. So why can't there be missions that require PvP?

What guarantee would there be that suitable mission targets would play along?

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

What guarantee would there be that suitable mission targets would play along?

I dunno. There are plenty of other games that are able to do it, so what make Elite any different?

 

[Brrokk]

 

[Mohrgan]

Boy, these open-only guys just need a reason to feel special, don't they? Would it help if I said that I admire your bravery and how you flaunt all of that risk you take with those pixels? Gee, I wish I was so daring.

I mean flying murder-boats must leave you with so many threats out there, that you can hardly breathe without copping a re-buy. Right? Because shields and high-wakes don't work in open. Ganks happen by the minute and no one is safe.

I hope that made you all fealies much better. Mama will give you all a pixelated gold space-star for being so 'hard' out there.

Fly Safe Commanders. 7o

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

View attachment 188013

First of all, 100% agree.

Just out of curiosity, hypothetically, what if the devs announced that they were making a CG for for solo only and another CG for open only. What are your thoughts?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I dunno. There are plenty of other games that are able to do it, so what make Elite any different?

Possibly that it is not sold as a game that requires PvP - it remains an optional extra for those who can choose to play in the multi-player game modes.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

Possibly that it is not sold as a game that requires PvP - it remains an optional extra for those who can choose to play in the multi-player game modes.

Elder Scrolls Online has PvP missions and content but is a game that can be played entirely solo if you want.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Elder Scrolls Online has PvP missions and content but is a game that can be played entirely solo if you want.

Not familiar with how that game is set up - it seems (from a quick search) that one would require to enter a specific area to engage in PvP?

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

Boy, these open-only guys just need a reason to feel special, don't they? Would it help if I said that I admire your bravery and how you flaunt all of that risk you take with those pixels? Gee, I wish I was so daring.

I mean flying murder-boats must leave you with so many threats out there, that you can hardly breathe without copping a re-buy. Right? Because shields and high-wakes don't work in open. Ganks happen by the minute and no one is safe.

I hope that made you all fealies much better. Mama will give you all a pixelated gold space-star for being so 'hard' out there.

Fly Safe Commanders. 7o

Oh the irony. Calling open only players salty and complainers while complaining about fully engineered ships and ganking. Lol

 

[Brrokk]

First of all, 100% agree.

Just out of curiosity, hypothetically, what if the devs announced that they were making a CG for for solo only and another CG for open only. What are your thoughts?

I wouldn't mind that if they catered for both types of play.

I think I'd be sceptical that they'd get it right, though, without leaving obvious exploits open. I don't know how they'd detect someone flying about in Solo then relogging to Open before docking.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

Not familiar with how that game is set up - it seems (from a quick search) that one would require to enter a specific area to engage in PvP?

Yes. In the center of the map, anyone can kill each other and theres a massive war over control of the map, in the rest of the map (about 80% of the whole playable map) players can do missions in solo or co op and PvP is not possible unless you agree to a duel.

 

[Rubbernuke]

For those who find PvP to be fun, maybe. This game does not require the buyer to like or even tolerate PvP to participate in all in-game features, one-off prize events and player organised "chase" events specifically excepted.

And we are back to the "its optional" argument. I "optionally" do not touch exploration, trade or anything like that CG wise.

How long would a bounty take to accrue popping a ship, piloted by a colluding player, that respawned in a Carrier instance? It does not need to be a Sidewinder.

Thats one metric- to get 10 million in CZ bonds takes positive game time. But, on its own might not be enough so you need other values to generate your 'worth' to each side.

I expect that mining remains as lucrative as it is because players need credits for Carriers - I don't see it being massively reduced in earning rate now.

And thus player BH is broken- it should be high value criminals / black mark players generate high sums of money, not just sitting drilling a rock all day which takes zero skill and is dull.

If player kills were to count more then some players would collude by any means possible to earn rewards for themselves or other players to suit their goals - including non-contested encounters where the reward would be set at a level for a contested encounter. Players will exploit what they can - and Frontier learned early that they will in PvP encounters.

And thats up to FD to find ways to stop- however FD have been rather elastic with such things.

What does "high stakes" mean in this context?

High stakes is having two CGs: the solo / PG is 'normal' in that bonds are the usual. The PvP CG is 'high stakes' because it acts like a Golden Snitch from Harry Potter (the other one) where a few high value player kills (or a few times more harder NPCs) can turn the tide. This way, you can risk going all out or go full grind but the incentive is there to risk it if you are losing.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

I wouldn't mind that if they catered for both types of play.

I think I'd be sceptical that they'd get it right, though, without leaving obvious exploits open. I don't know how they'd detect someone flying about in Solo then relogging to Open before docking.

Yeah, no doubt.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes. In the center of the map, anyone can kill each other and theres a massive war over control of the map, in the rest of the map (about 80% of the whole playable map) players can do missions in solo or co op and PvP is not possible unless you agree to a duel.

That's seems to explain how that game can offer PvP missions then - within the PvP zone.