Video of Sandro saying he was "musing" about bonus for open play, that they are "interesting", and "nothing is ever off the table"?
Modes [Suggestion] How to incentivise open play and make it relevant
- Thread starter Lateralus
- Start date
- Status
Video of Sandro saying he was "musing" about bonus for open play, that they are "interesting", and "nothing is ever off the table"?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed, this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s
Sandro Sammarco said:
The one where he also says that it was not going to be done at that time and that there are no plans to do it.
Yes, that's the one.
Funny how you skip over "musing out loud" and "no plans to do that".... when you consider how long something takes, to go from an idea, through planning, development, testing etc.. until release.
"No plans" = not in the next 5 years even if we start now.
Yeah, that is kinda obvious. But he didn't say "this is something we would not consider". IE, it is not something he is totally opposed to.
Hey you, it's just dawned on me - go and get some rest, we got a match tomorrow and my team mate has to be well rested (Because I'm going to have a hangover
)Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Sandro obviously considered it at one point - he himself brandished the hand grenade in March'16 - which proved to be quite contentious - and the pin was confirmed to be in place in December'16.
Last edited:
Yes, that's the one.
Funny how you skip over "musing out loud" and "no plans to do that".... when you consider how long something takes, to go from an idea, through planning, development, testing etc.. until release.
"No plans" = not in the next 5 years even if we start now.
Not under any delusion this would or could be done "tomorrow".
These are tweaks to existing mechanics, not brand new stuff. Changes like what is in the OP (other than the BGS attack thing) are about as small a change as you can make to incentivize open.
This is like adding the Pilots Federation bounty, adding on to stuff that is already there.
Hey you, it's just dawned on me - go and get some rest, we got a match tomorrow and my team mate has to be well rested (Because I'm going to have a hangover
Was flying around/testing a stock vette....
We are so dead
The whole 'consensual PvP' phrasing really only complicates things further, generally if you are choosing to play in a mode with other players, in my book, that is what you 'consent' to.
Kinda like going into say, walking knowingly into an active paintball game and not expecting to be hit, if you are expecting not to be hit, or not to get players doing something (and not just pvp) that you don't like in open, you are in for a surprise.
Personally I get frustratingly annoyed by some of the names people name themselves and ships in open, but that happens in all player games, and that's just the way it is, and heck sometimes when someone actually does something unique in that aspect its fairly nice to see, but mostly its a mindnumbing repetition of same old play on words or lame/old/reused jokes or similar, that it makes my brain hurt. But again, I play in open regardless, and I know that is part of it.
From my view the problem isn't so much that as it is, disruptive elements targeting easy targets exclusively so those targets get frustrated because it disrupts their play, but there is nothing that can be done against the attacking player in similar fashion, you know retribution or such, because that is generally that would be part of what they want anyway, at best they'd get into more fights which, I'd least I think they would want. So at best its ends up net neutral for attacker, them kept busy by fighting, there is no negative sides when it comes to game experience, but their targets end up with only the negative sides.
That is where i think the real problem is.
The whole risk/reward thing needs to work out better. but it is improving, so we will see.
Last edited:
When you go paintballing there's generally some very strict rules around the importance of not shooting any people who are not playing. This is because you would be legally liable for any injuries they received and criminal charges even if they were uninjured, specifically because they haven't consented to play a sport that can result in injuries.
I don't disagree that playing open and then complaining is daft, it's just your paintball analogy was really terrible.
I find really funny that people hold the "Elite: Dangerous is made exactly like that" argument only concerning to you affecting others from solo mode.
What about all the complaint concerning "the griefers issue"?
Where is that argument when people was asking for introducing harder penalties to player's killers?
Where is that argument when explorers ask for better mechanics?
I should suggest to not answer this argument anymore so we could have a better and richer debate.
First of all, real life have not the same consequences that a PC game and it never shouldn't.
Anyway, I'm a little sicked of people calling others "bad person" even "mentaly ill", in the spanish forums and sometimes in the english forums too, to those who like playing in-game combat (not your case, that is just an example).
People even quote Gandhi sometimes or the human rights law :O
I'm used to playing role-playing games and sometimes I'm the good guy and I'm the bad guy another. Without this interaction there is no fun. And the bad guys are an important part of the game in the same way that good guys are. There's no game without one of this parts. Sometimes those bad guys are played by other players, sometimes by the Storyteller through NPC. Sometimes this confrontation come from diplomacy, competition (in trading, territoriality..)... others through combat. It is easy to understand: one group want to reach one goal, and another group want to avoid it (whatever the reason).
I hope you can see now why BGS against PLAYER FACTIONS are PvP too.
That's why I cannot understand all this hate. I see all players as part of the game, in the same way I see all NPC as part of the game. "Good" or "bad" (eachone in their context) it doesn't matter.
Now... taking this apart, we should keep talking about all players fun. Not about what is legit or what is not.
This is a GAME so all is legit.
Ok... let's talk about the "multiplayer shared experience" in this game.
What about all players who want to be part of one of the greatest events of this game (The second bubble creation) and they can't because that part of the game is played in a private discord server and private groups?
Did you think that the only thing you are avoiding by playing in solo mode is combat?
There are much more out there. You have no idea of all the stories created by players and all the content you are missing (and you never will) and that's because how this game is made.
Keep thinking this game is only about scanning planets, shoot easy npc and trading commodities and keep calling "mutiplayer shared experience" to see how an number goes up/down in a station panel and to do missions alone in the galaxy.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
We are talking about players fun - and the game has been designed to accommodate players that don't find direct PvP to be fun.
Player choice is first and foremost - and if one player's fun results in another player not having fun then the latter can choose to continue playing without the former player.
The first choice that we make when starting each session of the game is which mode to play in, after all....
Last edited:
Loads of people have been a part of that event, in Solo and in Private Groups.
That's the beauty of Elite: Dangerous, anyone can join in the fun in any mode and the new bubble is available in all modes.
Who said folks are avoiding combat?
Different people play different modes for different reasons.
But in case you didn't know, aggressive NPCs are in all modes, you cannot avoid combat - the NPCs attack no matte where you are.
I know full well what "content" is in open - it's the same "content" available in Solo.
I'm not missing anything, not when people on the forums and on social media keep taking about it.
Though I know what you are missing, you're missing me as your "content".
I'm not missing being your "content"
I don't think any of that.
I think the game is here for me to have fun however I want, without needing your permission to play it or enjoy it.
Some days I play alone, some days I play with friends, some days I even play in Open and see as many folks as I do Solo - none.
(My "home" is on the edge of the bubble, so I don't tend to see anyone in Open.)
And... how exactly do you join to what's going on in CEI? Because if you say go to Colonia and do missions there then you are not aware about how much dmg you are doing. "That's the beaty of Elite"
People from solo and private groups like Mobius sait it ALL THE TIME?
The reason for many players hidding in solo modes is that "open is full of griefers"
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Actions by random players could be damaging - they could also be neutral or positive.
There's no in-game control of who can work for a Faction nor what they do - even if it is a player Faction - as they are treated exactly like NPC Factions with respect to the BGS.
Some do - and it is a player's perception that will inform their choice of game mode. As to "hiding" - if they *are* hiding from griefers, so what?
Last edited:
And this prove that you have no idea about what you are talking about.
How could if you are talking about open mode or BGS when you don't even play it?
I'm done with this thread. I think it is all said.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Proves? How, exactly?
Who doesn't play in Open?
I play on three accounts - in all modes (mainly PG, then Open, rarely Solo)....
.... and I do play the BGS - it's most of the game, after all....
Last edited:
I'm sorry? I have no idea how you go to the points you make.
I've been repeated on the griefer issue? and point out that those attackers need to be reigned in, even by apparently their own words they are now lacking victims and are trying to make people come over to them, or trying to give themselves advantages because there are so few victims, when their play style does not make any game play sense. Nothing, is gained by simply blowing people up.
Where is the argument? "Elite is made like this" when people want harder penalties? It is......right there? Elite is not build around PvP and people find it disruptive to the point of where some people are avoiding open, other people, the player killers want more people in open, but the suggested benefits of going into open are not going to handle the actual problems some people find with open, because of the fact that, Elite is not build as a PvP game, so what PvP'ers are asking for is an entirely new feature, where what others are asking for is that part of the game, that isn't really the main focus of the game becomes less disruptive to them?
Where's the argument when explorers ask for better mechanics? people are asking for an existing feature to be improved?
You seemingly are not making a different between.
Asking for an existing feature of the game to be improved (exploration) vs PvP people asking for PvP elements in a game that doesn't revolve around PvP? which would mean it is an entirely new mechanic that needs to be created because right now the game does not have any mechanics that are PvP related, it simply does not differentiate if someone is shooting another player or an npc.
What you quote from me was an example of something I dislike about playing in open, in relation to the whole 'consentual' thing, I am aware that this will happen if I play in open, despite disliking it, but that's part of joining open, just like if a player joins open and is attacked by another player then that is part of the game.
Yes, there are people who will call people that enjoy PvP various names and insults, I am not one of them, I enjoy PvE and PvP, something which sometimes is made out to be impossible, but yeah..
Good guy, bad guy is yes, a term up in the air, and not something I really can say much on.
Is using the background simulation against another player group an attack on that player group, yes, sure, but they can fight back with the background simulation, is it PvP? I suppose it depends on where you put the definition, its against other players, so by the raw term of it, but consider, that you are playing RISK or another board game, against other people.
Using the background simulation against other players to fight them and fight back, is playing the game.
What some PvP people want is not this, but is rather equivalent to going over and punching the other players until they stop playing RISK, are you allowed to attack other people? sure, but the game is RISK, you aren't going to win the game by any other means then playing it, this has been proven time and time again, where PvP focused groups have lost BGS because they, quite simply, aren't interested in BGS.
But playing the game, is legit, punching a player to stop them playing risk, is not, it is not what the game RISK, is about, is in essence what is often seen happening, and then there's the whole griefer issue, which use the "but I 'can' do it so its legit" argument, when it comes to attacking other players.
And that whole I can attack people so it is a legit move to continually go after people that pose no risk to me and destroy them, argument has been going forever and they aren't backing down.
And to be clear, I do not hate griefers, I get why victims do, but I don't, many years ago I was one, I know how it feels to get satisfaction from doing something to another that they can't do anything about, but it is not something I am proud off, and luckily for me rather quickly became boring, I've learned that there is so so much more to be gained from you know, actually playing the game, then finding ways to disrupt it for others, no matter how much power it makes me feel I have over someone else. I turned around, began helping rather then hurting those I had hurt before, and taking the time to interact in a way that is part of the game, rather then aimed at disrupting it gives so much more, and I wish the griefers would realise that, as I did.
Now that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be PvP, or pirates, by any stretch of the imagination. But there is a gigantic difference in a:
*interdict* *gimme your cargo* *wait 10 seconds* *blow them up* pirate.
And a pirate or heck any attacker, that actually talks to people, interacts with them, because guess what if they combat log, if they log out to avoid you, you weren't going to gain anything anyway, so net result is the same as previously, and you didn't provide them with a bad experience, yes, of course I get the frustration from combat logging and similar, and it is a problem yes, but attacking people should maybe consider that the defender/victim is doing it because of bad experiences, like most anyone would avoid something they have come to dislike? its association, an attacker will quickly get associated with other attackers and what those people have done it is simply how things work.
I am not saying you need to be super friendly or anything to other people, you can act in any number of evil or whatever ways, but the point is........interact with other people.
Last edited:
Yeah, I am aware, my point was to try to make it obvious, I mean I could have used a warzone and not expect to be shot, may have been better?
My point is entirely if you make a choice, it is your choice, it is your action, to go to a certain place, and what happens in whatever place, is what happens, don't go to a bar if you don't want to see drunk people and associated behaviour?
Yeah, I do outdoors stuff and get triggered by daft myths that could spoil easy access to fun things for everyone else.
The warzone analogy is a much better one, I like the bar one too. When I go to my local I walk into the saloon and avoid the public bar, the company is better, the chairs are comfier, there's never a smell of sick, open fire, good selection of real ale, riff-raff get shown the door and the manager puts the good looking staff in there as people tip better.
The public bar is open, the saloon is Mobius and staying in is solo.
I agree making a choice and complaining about the outcome is plainly silly, but to be fair complaining or even getting abusive and angry about other people's choices is plainly ludicrous (not that you are, it just comes up a lot).
I have been playing this great GAME that's right, it's a GAME for only a month now, and reading this forum for just as long. I play solo because it suits me. One thing I've constantly found on this forum is the constant verbal dirt about solo players should be playing pvp, or pvp is boring without more "targets". Then there's the other side stating pvp is full of griefers so why should i go there. Seriously people, it's a GAME. There are different modes for different people. Everyone seems to be getting up on the soapbox and degrading each other for having a different opinion. GET OVER YOURSELVES and let people play how THEY want and deal with it. I didn't buy this game to play it YOUR way. Nor do i expect you to play it MY way. Just do what works for YOU and stop trying to change what works for everyone else. This thread alone is enough to make me trade it in and let you all bicker endlessly in your own little forum universe. It's quite pathetic really. Flatkat out!! Shame cause i loved the game.
- Status