Just doing some star wars role playing
[video=youtube;yVKySA2-47c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVKySA2-47c[/video]
Modes [Suggestion] How to incentivise open play and make it relevant
- Thread starter Lateralus
- Start date
- Status
Just doing some star wars role playing
[video=youtube;yVKySA2-47c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVKySA2-47c[/video]
And I like how my post was ignored. My legitimate question went unanswered by those fighting for these so called changes. I mean, I already knew it was a red herring, as everyone has said. But I just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt to see how you'd answer it.
Alas, I was wrong.
Also, 90's, you say a lot of people have been saying it's imbalanced but you haven't given us any concrete numbers, and despite Frontier not releasing any statistics on their end we do know that Mobius has three (I believe. Might still just be two) separate groups, two of which are at 20,000 players (Of which you can check in-game for yourself). Now, I'm not putting you down in any way I'm just stating that you've not given us any reliable numbers. The number 273 keeps getting thrown around, but I think that was for replies to a particular thread and not really how many people participated in said thread so I believe 273 isn't a good indicator.
Again, I'm not putting you down in anyway, I'm just stating that only one set of variables is known and that's the fact that Mobius has at least 40,000 players. The other two are unknowns; Frontier hasn't given specific numbers but say that the majority don't participate in PvP[B][citation needed][/B] and it's unknown how many of those are already a part of Mobius. And the second of which is yours, in which you use the blanket term "a lot" but no numbers given. So as it stands it's 40,000 against two unknown variables.
Alas, I was wrong.
Also, 90's, you say a lot of people have been saying it's imbalanced but you haven't given us any concrete numbers, and despite Frontier not releasing any statistics on their end we do know that Mobius has three (I believe. Might still just be two) separate groups, two of which are at 20,000 players (Of which you can check in-game for yourself). Now, I'm not putting you down in any way I'm just stating that you've not given us any reliable numbers. The number 273 keeps getting thrown around, but I think that was for replies to a particular thread and not really how many people participated in said thread so I believe 273 isn't a good indicator.
Again, I'm not putting you down in anyway, I'm just stating that only one set of variables is known and that's the fact that Mobius has at least 40,000 players. The other two are unknowns; Frontier hasn't given specific numbers but say that the majority don't participate in PvP[B][citation needed][/B] and it's unknown how many of those are already a part of Mobius. And the second of which is yours, in which you use the blanket term "a lot" but no numbers given. So as it stands it's 40,000 against two unknown variables.
Last edited:
No, it is known that open has 2.75 million players.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Citation required for that one, please....
Alright. I'll use 2.75 million as an example
I'm sure that everyone who's played E: D has taken part in Open thus is part of that 2.75 million. But my point still stands. How many of that 2.75 million feel that the modes are imbalanced? How many of that 2.75 million are the majority, according to Frontier, that don't partake in PvP? How many pop into Open every now and then but play in a PG or Solo most of the time?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't someone at Frontier say that they're advocating for Open play (Or something similar, my memory really isn't the greatest)? Wouldn't that in turn mean that there are more than 2.75 million that don't play in Open? We don't know whether this 2.75 million play exclusively in Open or play in S/PG the majority of the time. Or if there's more players unaccounted for that don't play Open. Again, Frontier hasn't released any statistics; only they have numbers.
So, other than the 40,000 players we know are in Mobius, the other numbers are still unknown.
Last edited:
I'm guessing they are taking the numbers from this source.
Suggesting that it is 'known' that they all play in open is probably stretching it a bit...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Citation required for that too.
Points:
1) 2.75M relates to franchise units (i.e. copies of Elite: Dangerous and copies of Horizons). Therefore the number of players can be no larger than the number of individual copies of Elite: Dangerous, i.e. less than the 2.75M total as the total includes copies of the Horizons season. We don't know how many of these players still play nor which mode they play in - Frontier do, however.
2) The Mobius Groups would seem to have about 40,000 members. We don't know how many of these players still play nor which mode they play in - Frontier do, however.
That's copies sold. It does not say where those people play or what platform.
And with all this fuss over trying to get more people into open, I think it is a safe bet most of those people don't play open.
Or folks wouldn't be trying to force them to play open would they.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
Ok. I think I got it this time.
You have evidence that the BGS works in all three modes, and that people actually do it in all three modes. That's actually nothing new, and no evidence is needed, nor is it necessary to inform anyone that you have this evidence.
As for the Guild thing; FDev have called them Player Groups and have now introduced a new term called Squadrons. Not sure why you insist on calling it Guilds. It's like it has a sinister meaning, and everything will change if you just keep calling it Guilds. It won't. It is what it is, no more no less.
I also think you are going way overboard in what you believe Beyond will do for the game. It appears that you believe it will be this huge upheaval of the game and everything will change. Again, I am not sure where you got idea from. FDev have stated that they will focus on developing the Core Features of the game next year. From their FX reveals, we are talking about C&P (which we already have a taste of in the Feedback section), expanding the careers (particularly mining and exploring), and then in-game support for Squadrons/Player Groups in-game. Nowhere have they stated that they will turn the game upside down, suddenly make PeeVeePee become the core gameplay, make Open The Ultimate Mode, or any similar statements. Again, that seems to be what you want it to become, so you take their innocuous comments to have greater meaning than they have.
I agree with one thing; Let's see what happens. We've been down this road before you and I, and you were adament that 2.4 would bring some PvP focused features. Well, you weren't right then. Let's see how far off you are for Beyond. Until then, this is all speculation mixed with a good dose of hyperbole.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
They actually have 4. Mobius (Europe), Mobius PVE (Americas), Mobius EURASIA, and Mobius Factions. The latter is meant for people actually working for the in-game Mobius Player Faction.
The numbers are a bit conflated for Mobius, as a lot of members are in more than one group, and a lot have stopped playing alltogether. So active players in Mobius we really don't know anything about. Like someone else said; only FDev have those numbers.
Well there's my angle gone. (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
I guess I am a terrible debater.
Alright, so ALL three are unknowns. No one has concrete and reliable numbers.
All we have to go on is what others have said that Frontier has stated, majority of players don't partake in PvP[B][citation needed][/B]. If that is indeed the case then I don't see Frontier changing it and basically saying screw you to the majority by removing the BGS from Solo and PG.
And Jockey brought up a good point...
I don't see how Frontier would have the gall to basically strip the BGS from the majority of their players just to satisfy the few in Open.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Here:
On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that
Last edited:
The setup:
The punchline:
Makes you wonder who That90skid is trying to convince? Us or himself?
Anyway, on topic:
Actions in Open should not influence the BGS. It makes so much sense. The BGS is a result of PvE activities so it doesn't belong in a mode that enables irrelevant PvP. Anyone who wants to influence the BGS does so in solo/PG, equaling the environment for everyone. The thing that sets open apart from the other modes is not relevant to the BGS anyway. In Open you can use tricksiness with your connection which means you bypass the chance of meeting other CMDRs, plus instancing, plus different gaming platforms, plus timezones, it's a mess. My solution has none of these drawbacks.
Everyone is happy, cake all around.
The punchline:
Makes you wonder who That90skid is trying to convince? Us or himself?
Anyway, on topic:
Actions in Open should not influence the BGS. It makes so much sense. The BGS is a result of PvE activities so it doesn't belong in a mode that enables irrelevant PvP. Anyone who wants to influence the BGS does so in solo/PG, equaling the environment for everyone. The thing that sets open apart from the other modes is not relevant to the BGS anyway. In Open you can use tricksiness with your connection which means you bypass the chance of meeting other CMDRs, plus instancing, plus different gaming platforms, plus timezones, it's a mess. My solution has none of these drawbacks.
Everyone is happy, cake all around.
Last edited:
If I understand correctly, its large player groups acting coordinated on the BGS in solo/group that is the complaint. These groups are playing the bgs and the open groups cannot get to them to stop them. Conversely, these open groups are also playing the bgs but the solo/group players cannot get to them to stop them as these solo groups are predominantly pvp players with likely well armed ships. The solo/group do it via pve means, the open group by pvp means. Essentially we have player bases playing two different games using one operating system. Thus the solo/group add a bit more variability to the bgs from what I can fathom, but the open dont like that. They want it to remain stable and for their actions to keep the bgs doing what it was doing every day with little to no movement or variability. But any change that does occur is to be answered by pvp and not the open doing any pve. They wish to dominate a faction and keep it where it is for eternity. i.e control.
Disregard all the horse manure. It is always about control. Whenever you cut through all the politiking and fancy wording, it always boils down to control.
As far as I can tell, the pvp open crew cannot be bothered to fight fire with fire. They can only fight it with guns. Theyre limited by their own one dimensional approach. pew pew. This whole thing could easily be countered by simply counter pve'ing. Conversely we pve are too lilly livered to counter pvp. Well what nutjob combats to their opponents strengths? Ones that are very short lived. But counter pve'ing doesnt entail comparable risk for the pvp players, yet they still wont bother with it. Currently from what you'd think, the pvp groups are getting pwned by the pve groups. I think this is being overstated to make a point.
Open pvp bgs players just need to adopt new tactics or expand the ones they have. From what I can see, an interesting new mechanic is developing but the open players are too intransigent in their approach to adopt counter measures.
Personally I dont faction or play the bgs. I faff around in group doing my own thing. Yet I am to be penalised for just that just because a group cannot fathom a way to counter another groups actions. Yet apparently there's more players in open than in this group. So rather than counter in game, the war is taken to the forum.
I generally have zero issues with pvp. Or open. Its great that theres flexibility for a game to encompass a variety of play styles. But if open was to dominate, then elite would just be a war in space one dimensional game full of pew pew and cries of noob this and your mammas that. Pretty much like every pew pew game that has ever existed.
But its not really about this. Its about people who cannot access other people to shoot them, control them and dominate them. All the umpteen threads once distilled boil down to this. You only have to read some of the pvp group forums, and I do for a chuckle, to see it for what it is.
Disregard all the horse manure. It is always about control. Whenever you cut through all the politiking and fancy wording, it always boils down to control.
As far as I can tell, the pvp open crew cannot be bothered to fight fire with fire. They can only fight it with guns. Theyre limited by their own one dimensional approach. pew pew. This whole thing could easily be countered by simply counter pve'ing. Conversely we pve are too lilly livered to counter pvp. Well what nutjob combats to their opponents strengths? Ones that are very short lived. But counter pve'ing doesnt entail comparable risk for the pvp players, yet they still wont bother with it. Currently from what you'd think, the pvp groups are getting pwned by the pve groups. I think this is being overstated to make a point.
Open pvp bgs players just need to adopt new tactics or expand the ones they have. From what I can see, an interesting new mechanic is developing but the open players are too intransigent in their approach to adopt counter measures.
Personally I dont faction or play the bgs. I faff around in group doing my own thing. Yet I am to be penalised for just that just because a group cannot fathom a way to counter another groups actions. Yet apparently there's more players in open than in this group. So rather than counter in game, the war is taken to the forum.
I generally have zero issues with pvp. Or open. Its great that theres flexibility for a game to encompass a variety of play styles. But if open was to dominate, then elite would just be a war in space one dimensional game full of pew pew and cries of noob this and your mammas that. Pretty much like every pew pew game that has ever existed.
But its not really about this. Its about people who cannot access other people to shoot them, control them and dominate them. All the umpteen threads once distilled boil down to this. You only have to read some of the pvp group forums, and I do for a chuckle, to see it for what it is.
Guys! I discovered a conspiracy. This thread is not a thread. It's a CG!
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/389634-Feeding-California-(Trade)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/389634-Feeding-California-(Trade)
It is a bit daft that an invisible armada of CMDRs can be sent against you (playing in SOLO/GROUP), and there's basically nothing you can do about it as they're untouchable by any CMDR.
I proposed a number of times, that where possible any results/outcomes should be dictated by splitting the results between OPEN and non-OPEN. Then combining them for the final outcome. In the way, people playing in OPEN have a more proportional say/effect in the results.
eg: If someone is delivering X yo Y, if X (cargo) ever exists in any mode other than OPEN it's flagged accordingly, and then does not count towards the OPEN total, but NON-OPEN (SOLO/GROUP) total.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If the game required direct PvP to engage in BGS activities, certainly.
Why should one game mode be given a bonus?
Open already contributes a proportional input to the outcome - with emphasis on proportional. What is being sought is a disproportionate input (i.e. bigger) for Open.
Sandro mused about this, for PowerPlay only, well over a year ago. The musing was contentious at that time - and that was only for the niche activity that is PowerPlay. Sandro also confirmed that there were no plans to introduce such a bonus, nearly a year ago.
Last edited:
No, you see. That's what I thought. But the OP made it clear the PvP groups are not going to grind BGS, even with a bonus. It's not about the BGS. It's about seeing more targets.
The thread is aimed to get more soft targets in Open. Any talk of balance or risk/reward is just that, talk.
Of course it is.
The reasoning is; PvE groups grind BGS. Not against any PvP group, since they don't care about the BGS, this is on general principle. PvP groups are not going to counter grind. So PvE groups need to be in Open so they are forced to PvP. Because that's fair and balanced.
It's hypocrisy at it's finest
Last edited:
That's a very good question. Explain to me then why SOLO get that bonus currently?
ie: Try doing a trade CG in SOLO and OPEN and tell me if the experience is the same? Because I think we all know which is the easier/safer to do it in... and therefore currently is giving a bonus?
- Status