You can have CGs running in parallel, so one could be solo PG BH style grind, the other a harder version with say, spec ops and player kills that count for more. The former is farming, the latter is reduced kill numbers but PvP/ harder. Its self contained, and if you want none of it its not forced on you at all. So rather than lump everything together you separate them out and work to the modes and what they offer.
Open only story arcs please
- Thread starter VagueTK
- Start date
You can have CGs running in parallel, so one could be solo PG BH style grind, the other a harder version with say, spec ops and player kills that count for more. The former is farming, the latter is reduced kill numbers but PvP/ harder. Its self contained, and if you want none of it its not forced on you at all. So rather than lump everything together you separate them out and work to the modes and what they offer.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Whether a game designed and sold to all players with no requirement to engage in PvP to engage in any in-game feature should then PvP-gate content to suit some players who bought the game for something it's not is a matter of opinion.
But if PvP objectives are absent then they'll never offer anything new- and if we have CGs every two weeks or so you are going to need variety.
sure - a CG that only counts player kills of players that are signed up for the GC - that actually sounds like the closest thing to an official PVE mode.
Even though I'm not and have never been a PVP player, I find the fact that Elite doesn't count/track or give any kind of reward beyond normal NPC rewards for PVP very odd.
Yeah, I've been loving these burning station systems already. We've been creating blockades to stop players from rescuing these stations while fighting the lawful enforcer players that are trying to protect them. This past weekend has been some of the most fun I've had in Elite in a very long time.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
PvP kills aren't necessarily harder - simply because players can choose to collude.
If you have two CGs that are for solo and the other for open, how is that taking something away? Its just giving a part of the playerbase something they want.
And done right you can mitigate that via design, or let it play out and see if people will break the system. Until you try you'll never know and will always be sat going 'no' going nowhere.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If the one that does require PvP can tip the balance in the outcome. All players can participate in a pan-modal CG, not all players could participate in an Open only CG.
I think it would be a really great CG to have a PVP event where participants only get CG rewards for player kills for other players that signed up for the GC.
You forget that both CGs are important- you have to do well in both to win. Plus- can you sign up for more than one CG at a time? What if you had to choose and could not change for the duration?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In which case the Open CG being caused to fail would tip the balance to failure regardless of the outcome of the pan-modal CG.
Yes - as many CGs as there are running. If the CMDR were limited to choosing one for the duration then that's where altCMDRs come in to play - free on consoles, cheap on PC.
Until you try, you just won't know. Its like with Powerplay- if the majority of people are playing correctly it drowns out the bad. Its never stopped people throwing current CZS which can be gamed too in any mode.
Thats a shame. It would be good if you could choose between Open only or Solo PG. But then again its like Powerplay where free console commanders have infinite votes- costs money on PC but free on consoles.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
CZ outcomes aren't permanent. In terms of "playing correctly" then I doubt that all players who prefer PvP would do so in a hypothetical Open only CG - as there would be those only there for any players to target with little interest in the outcome.
Oh, you mean opposed CGs, then yes, I'm all up for that.
Also CGs should change. Tier one should be far more difficult to reach, so you can fail them, and then the additional tiers should be much closer together. Or maybe they should change depending on the type of CG. Building a station CG springs to mind.
Thats part and parcel of open- and injects a notion of unpredictability to a feature thats not that unpredictable. Right now no CG can fail, and its rather aseptic during play.
In the end it comes down to weighting- the solo PG CG would be the bulk, but the Open CG would be the bonus. If you were clever you could write accounts of both in the narrative.
Sort of- imagine say out of the 10 tiers, 2 of them were for PvP kills sort of thing- that take into account the various ways things pan out.
That actually sounds like loads of fun.
I'm not sure how forcing some other more reluctant people into the mix would add to it, telling them it's great fun might well work though.
Catching flies with honey rather than vinegar is a better approach than "do it my way now".
Every time I see posts like this, all I can read it as is "Everybody is playing in solo so I can't gank unarmed cargo ships, woe is me"