Modes [Suggestion] How to incentivise open play and make it relevant

[EvE4evah]

The Salome outcry is silly… "one guy ruins a whole event", seriously?

There were two possible outcomes.

Salome lives.

Salome dies.

He chose to kill Salome and was keen enough to infiltrate the defender ranks and get close to her and kill her.

How is that supposed to be "ruining"?

You've quoted some absurdly biased links there, Jockey.

I know, some people suspecting and even have weak evidences that the whole thing was staged and the outcome was already scripted, hence the conclusion that said player was a mere pawn in the grand scheme. In this scenario, the organizers would be the ones at fault, not him.

Still, how can sane people possibly argue that he was responsible for ruining the fun for all the other participants?

Guy used in-game mechanics, some strategy and a bit more brains than the majority used, to pursue a valid outcome.

That's just… I can't even…

 

[EvE4evah]

I suppose in a cutthroat galaxy everybody has to be so sanctimonious at all times, specially during large lore PvP events in Open.

 

[Stigbob]

The Salome outcry is silly… "one guy ruins a whole event", seriously?

There were two possible outcomes.

Salome lives.

Salome dies.

He chose to kill Salome and was keen enough to infiltrate the defender ranks and get close to her and kill her.

How is that supposed to be "ruining"?

You've quoted some absurdly biased links there, Jockey.

I know, some people suspecting and even have weak evidences that the whole thing was staged and the outcome was already scripted, hence the conclusion that said player was a mere pawn in the grand scheme. In this scenario, the organizers would be the ones at fault, not him.

Still, how can sane people possibly argue that he was responsible for ruining the fun for all the other participants?

Guy used in-game mechanics, some strategy and a bit more brains than the majority used, to pursue a valid outcome.

That's just… I can't even…

He didn't ruin it, the only dodgy thing was that he was flying with exploited modules arguably invalidating the outcome. So Drew could have rewritten what happened on the basis it wasn't legit, maybe had him thrown out of an airlock without a helmet for cheating at space-cards or something.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

He didn't ruin it, the only dodgy thing was that he was flying with exploited modules arguably invalidating the outcome. So Drew could have rewritten what happened on the basis it wasn't legit, maybe had him thrown out of an airlock without a helmet for cheating at space-cards or something.

I love this one. Its my favorite, because it shows just like the dude above that thought the Salome event was in a private group. And Jockey never took part in the Salome event. So he knows how much fun I and others didnt have.

And now we have this engineer sploiter comment.

Listen, those spoits were the closest thing to a level playing field we've had in this game before Engineering happened. PVEers got their modules wiped too. Lets not pretend " IT WAS JUST THE GAME RUINING PVPERS" that did this.

And the outcome would have been the same.

To Prove this go watch Archon Fury tear up Conda's in his Sidewinder.

The only thing those exploits did was give advantage over other PVPERs that didnt take advantage of it. Thats literally the only gap that was made.

Out of my few days here on these forums. All thats been coming out of the people around here is excuses and assumptions, while dropping misinformation all over the place.

Ya'll try to explain thats how the game is right now. When we all know how the game is right now.

Very frustrating to fight for something. When you have people that have no idea what they are talking about. Holding a game back because they would rather find any and every excuse for others not to have fun. When ya'll have other options and modes to play with in the first place.

But its to be expected. And it wont last forever.

 

[NeilF]

Rewarding open play to make it relevant : The open 'Token'

The Problem with Mode Equality

The debate between open players and solo/private group players has raged-on constantly since before Elite: Dangerous actually released - with the former asking that open play be made the priority by Frontier to give the MMO side of the game some importance, and the latter demanding that their chosen modes be treated no differently so they are not effectively 'penalised' for choosing not to play in open.

Between the two sharp ends of the argument, there is a fairly large percentage of players who's question is; 'why should I play in open if there is no reward?'.. If the player in question is not a PvP combat player, bounty hunter or pirate - then this is an excellent question, why should they? There is no profit or loot bonuses, so they are taking a huge risk for seemingly no reason.

Currently, the non-combat players who do choose to brave the perils of open play do so because they either enjoy the risk and unpredictable nature of player encounters, or they simply enjoy interacting with other players generally. But the vast majority non-combat players of course will stick to the safer waters of solo, or PvE focused private groups such as Mobius. For these reasons, mode equality can result in several undesirable side-effects;

• The vast majority of players in open will be combat players, this gives the ED the preception that it is a 'gankfest'.. non-combat players will be scared off by 10 FDLs skulking around a CG system.
• The trader - pirate - bounty hunter ecosystem cannot work well, because the vast majority of traders are in solo/PG
• Large PvE factions are able to attack smaller factions BGS from the safety of a private group or solo without any risk. There is literally nothing the smaller group can do to resist.
• There is no need for strategic play (defence wings, evasion or stealth) because the player can just switch modes at any time without enduring any loss.
• Oppertunities for interesting, emergent gameplay are lost because there is a path of least resistance open to all players, anywhere at all times

These issues mean that the MMO side of Elite can feel pretty stagnant and pointless... so it descends into players flying around ganking because that's all that's left after all the meaning has been filtered out by the equality of the mode system. Nothing in open is exclusive or ultimately matters, so it turns into a boredom-induced slaughter.

Despite Frontier's commitment to the notion that 'all modes are equal', anyone who's flown through a CG system in open will tell you - they're actually far from equal. Only the reward is.


Potential Solution : The Open Token

Bonus to Open Profits

Spoiler

To give open play a bit of relevance, I propose that every item acquired in open play; whether it be cargo, bounty vouchers, combat bonds, data packages, missions or anything else that can be redeemed for profit - comes with a bonus token that generates a 25% (or similar) profit reward when redeemed (cargo is sold, vouchers/data redeemed, missions completed). This token would be lost if the player switches to solo or private group while they have the cargo or have unredeemed vouchers/missions. The result would be many more players in open and at the same time would discourage 'mission board-flipping' because that would also wipe the bonus.

The token would be entirely a programmatical concept, but would be represented on the UI in some way.

Token Requirement for BGS Manipulation Against Player Factions

Spoiler

With squadrons on the way, I think the problem of solo & private group players stomping rival factions to dust via the BGS needs to be addressed.. The open token could be used to make attacking rival player factions an exclusively open activity (as it should be - solo & private groups should be for the use of players who aren't interested in conflict with other players).

How it could work is that the BGS would require the open token for player actions to affect a system where a player faction is present (both positively & negatively). This would bring the MMO side of the game alive, because player factions could no longer quietly destroy a rivals influence from a private group - they would have to risk attack in open to do it. There would finally be a concept of defending your home system from BGS attack without having to counter-grind (which if you're a PvP group is not really desirable or viable if your group is much smaller than the attacker). PvP would be given a purpose, because it would be an excellent way for smaller groups to defend themselves from larger groups (small skillful PvP groups could resist large PvE groups very effectively).

The defending group would also get visibiity of who is attacking them (increasing inter-faction drama/intrigue), because at the moment this is very hard to figure out.

EDIT: To clarify, I'd suggest that the token requirement only apply to the attacking faction, it is perfectly reasonable to be able to defend your system from a private group or solo.

If a player faction controls a system, then only open play actions would affect the BGS there. However when squadrons arrive, members of the controlling faction should be able to affect the BGS in their system from private or solo. If they are not members of the faction, their activities would only affect that system in open play. This would mean that groups who wish to destroy the influence of a controlling player faction would have to do so from open... leaving them vulnerable to pvp patrols (they have to travel through the system to hand in their cargo/data/bounties, and the open token would make switching modes while they are on route a no-go - otherwise their actions would be ineffective).

Manifest Scanner Upgrade

Spoiler

As players would now be trying to defend their system from BGS attack, there should be a way for players to discover what missions other players are running (to see if they are working against their faction/squadron). I think that the manifest scanner should be upgraded so that it shows not only cargo & passengers, but also shows active missions the target is running, and for who.

This would provide a method for squadron members to identify incidents of BGS manipulation by other player factions/squadrons/powers and would make open play very interesting.

The token idea is similar to the OPEN flag I've proposed in the past, in that cargo for example that ever exists in any mode other than OPEN is flagged as such. It would then not count towards OPEN outcomes. And by OPEN outcome this could be anything from an OPEN only CG or seperate OPEN totals accrued in Powerplay etc.

The premise of rewarding players more for OPEN? Hmmm... Not sure of this.

I would say at the very least the game needs to orchestrate a small number of hot spots aimed at PvP. The could be dedicated OPEN CGs or the BGS utilising a system or systems in some sort of state and opening up rewards (eg: missions). ie: Ultimately to create a couple of logical go to places for PvP such as side X vs side Y, or CMDRs trying to get suplpied/cargo to X, while other CMDRs are trying to stop them etc.

 

[Stigbob]

I love this one. Its my favorite because it shows just like the dude above that thought the Salome event was in a private group. And Jockey never took part in the Salome event. So he knows how much fun I and others didnt have.

Did you mean to post that at Jockey, it seems to bear absolutely no relevance to what I said.

And now we have this engineer sploiter comment.

According to Harry he had all his modules stripped by FDEV for cheating, the Salome event happened prior to him being caught. So he was flying an exploited ship, he's the Lance Armstrong of space betrayal so it wasn't legit.

Listen, those spoits were the closest thing to a level playing field we've had in this game before Engineering happened. PVEers got their modules wiped too. Lets not pretend " IT WAS JUST THE GAME RUINING PVPERS" that did this.

The 5-1 exploits happened after engineering was introduced, there were earlier one's but I'm not on about them.

And the outcome would have been the same.

I agree anyone who didn't immediately assume Harry would betray them is daft, it's so obvious it has to have been the plan all along. It's just the dodgy modules that make it all a bit seedy.

To Prove this go watch Archon Fury tear up Conda's in his Sidewinder.

Never heard of him, pop in a link.

The only thing those exploits did was give advantage over other PVPERs that didnt take advantage of it. Thats literally the only gap that was made.

Nope, two PVP groups exploited engineers in secret for months whilst telling all the legit players they needed to "git-gud" or leave the game.

Out of my few days here on these forums. All thats been coming out of the people around here is excuses and assumptions, while dropping misinformation all over the place.

If you need a source for Harry repeatedly telling the forum that he cheated, it's Harry himself.

Ya'll try to explain thats how the game is right now. When we all know how the game is right now.

?.

Very frustrating to fight for something. When you have people that have no idea what they are talking about. Holding a game back because they would rather find any and every excuse for others not to have fun. When ya'll have other options and modes to play with in the first place.

The cheats and exploiters are holding the game back as FDEV have to patch out what they do taking resources directly away from new content.

But its to be expected. And it wont last forever.

Are you getting sick of it ?.

 

[NeilF]

Did you mean to post that at Jockey, it seems to bear absolutely no relevance to what I said.



According to Harry he had all his modules stripped by FDEV for cheating, the Salome event happened prior to him being caught. So he was flying an exploited ship, he's the Lance Armstrong of space betrayal so it wasn't legit.



The 5-1 exploits happened after engineering was introduced, there were earlier one's but I'm not on about them.



I agree anyone who didn't immediately assume Harry would betray them is daft, it's so obvious it has to have been the plan all along. It's just the dodgy modules that make it all a bit seedy.



Never heard of him, pop in a link.



Nope, two PVP groups exploited engineers in secret for months whilst telling all the legit players they needed to "git-gud" or leave the game.



If you need a source for Harry repeatedly telling the forum that he cheated, it's Harry himself.



?.



The cheats and exploiters are holding the game back as FDEV have to patch out what they do taking resources directly away from new content.



Are you getting sick of it ?.

On a side note, I really do think The Engineers (the crafting of all combat modules/aspects) has compromised PvP... I'd much rather lose a fight down to being out flown, rather than being out-rolled or not (unluckily) having X to counter magic side effect Y.

TBH, it's even screwed over SOLO with the disparity it's introduced between CMDRs and NPCs...

 

[Stigbob]

On a side note, I really do think The Engineers (the crafting of all combat modules/aspects) has compromised PvP... I'd much rather lose a fight down to being out flown, rather than being out-rolled or not (unluckily) having X to counter magic side effect Y.

TBH, it's even screwed over SOLO with the disparity it's introduced between CMDRs and NPCs...

I like engineers, as long as you don't grind till your eye's bleed you won't get cross about it I usually stick with best of three rolls. A few percentage points here or there make no real difference.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Did you mean to post that at Jockey, it seems to bear absolutely no relevance to what I said.



According to Harry he had all his modules stripped by FDEV for cheating, the Salome event happened prior to him being caught. So he was flying an exploited ship, he's the Lance Armstrong of space betrayal so it wasn't legit.



The 5-1 exploits happened after engineering was introduced, there were earlier one's but I'm not on about them.



I agree anyone who didn't immediately assume Harry would betray them is daft, it's so obvious it has to have been the plan all along. It's just the dodgy modules that make it all a bit seedy.



Never heard of him, pop in a link.



Nope, two PVP groups exploited engineers in secret for months whilst telling all the legit players they needed to "git-gud" or leave the game.



If you need a source for Harry repeatedly telling the forum that he cheated, it's Harry himself.



?.



The cheats and exploiters are holding the game back as FDEV have to patch out what they do taking resources directly away from new content.



Are you getting sick of it ?.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5bXl3JoudpCUdMGT4fAYTA/feed Heres some Archon Fury. He has some good fights in his DBS too. He puts himself at a disadvantage, or as level as a playing field as you could get. Using his skills and experience to out fly their opponents.

As for everything else?

You're not telling me things I dont already know. And thats not what I meant about dropping misinformation everywhere. The basic grade 5 engineering paired with his experience would have had the same out come. Again, the only gap it really made was gaps between pvpers. Everything else, makes no difference, what he died .5 seconds faster? It doesn't matter.



And no I am not sick of it. Im 15 time World ForumPVP Heavy Weight Champion of the World.

Joking aside. its tiresome when you see where the game could be. And activities to keep people here. And it would draw people away from actual "griefing". Because there would be something to fight over. Instead of these staged wrestling matches we have now. Made up by player groups.

They have to tools at their finger tips for major growth and engaging gameplay while other things in this game roll out over time. It sucks to see friends and people quit on both sides of the fence because of it. I get a lot of, "hey 90s I've just been logging in sitting at a station and logging out. I want to play but what else is there to do?"

And its lots and LOTS of people my dude. Thats not cool.

Making these changes would solve SO MANY PROBLEMS. And solo and private groups can still continue to play for themselves. Thats what solo and private is. They are purposefully picking those modes so people cant directly impact them. Self Segregation. So if thats how you guys are playing. Why should you guys be able to effect my player group within them? And vice versa.

Please tell me how this is balanced again?

 

[NeilF]

I like engineers, as long as you don't grind till your eye's bleed you won't get cross about it I usually stick with best of three rolls. A few percentage points here or there make no real difference.

I like the premise of The Engineers, but alas it's been employed in such a fashion it creates God ships and yet more needless paper-scissors-stones gameplay. This is less of an issue in SOLO, but for OPEN IMHO it's damaged it.

It needs to be drastically scaled down at the very least... And the magic side effect? *sigh*

 

[Stigbob]

I like the premise of The Engineers, but alas it's been employed in such a fashion it creates God ships and yet more needless paper-scissors-stones gameplay. This is less of an issue in SOLO, but for OPEN IMHO it's damaged it.

It needs to be drastically scaled down at the very least... And the magic side effect? *sigh*

There's always an RNG element in games, if the outcome of engineering was more user controlled there would be a very short list of min-maxers uber-recipes that everyone would use and difference would decrease. I like to just twiddle individual ships to my liking never worrying god-rolls, so I enjoy it.

 

[Rampant]

Frontier should be allowed to make these changes to keep their game fresh and engaging. And if they give open features built around the BGS and Powerplay to make those changes happen. Then ya'll using solo and private modes can still go about doing what you do. Its optional. Just like everything else in this game.

As far as I'm aware, Frontier don't need my permission or your permission, or any group's permission to change the game in any way they feel inclined. Frontier don't need anyone to "allow" them to do so. They will do as they please. And do as they please they always have done.

Right from the get-go, when there was a plan to include an offline mode, it was decided by Frontier that all modes would be subject to the same BGS. A single BGS, not several fragmented over different modes. It was at this stage that the decision to host a dynamic changing single BGS that this design criterion then "trumped" the mooted offline mode, because an offline mode would lead to fragmented and basically non-dynamic BGSs.

Frontier chose this model of a single, all-player affected, dynamic sole BGS and in doing so sacrificed offline mode, *for the good of the game*.

In doing so, they ostracised and alienated many pledged contributors, many of which chose to take their money back due to the offline mode being shelved in favour of a single BGS


So there we have positive proof that Frontier are not averse to upsetting players to make the game they want to make. They chose a single BGS that would be, by Frontier's choice, affected equally by all modes as the baseline option.

Except a BGS attack. Thats not optional if you care about your system. Thats "Forcing" a play style on someone that ends up being a time vs time grind. Ya'll have options. So should people on the other end of the spectrum.

Thats why I call for balancing.

Now continue to come up with every excuse in the book for this game not to grow because of these forums selfish reasons.

Firstly:

In order to defend against a BGS attack, you have the *option* of playing the BGS. Y'all have the same options.
Conversely, in order to defend against a player attack, you have the *option* of PvP combat. And nothing else. No secondary option exists.

Are you seriously suggesting that you want a second option against BGS play? While at the same time calling that PvP combat isn't a time versus time grind? Which we all know that it *is*. While also implying that PvP combat isn't also "Forcing" a play style on someone. Which we also all know that it *is* - even just to prepare for it with engineered modules and forced ship choice and lots of time practicing escape moves, etc if players are to "git gud" (Oh how much do I loathe that phrase?) and even then it becomes a dead-end if a wing is involved versus a single player. You *know* this. Yet you are advocating "Forcing" this play style onto players. For the sake of "balancing"? Please don't make me laugh in utter disdain for your words because this is when credibility is lost.

Secondly:

*wall now has a head-shaped indentation*

Platforms.
Instancing.
Block lists.
Time of play.
P2P networking.
(UPnP.)

All of these criteria mean that you would have no *option* anyway, in a great number of cases.

Nobody previously ever answered my serious question of how you can reconcile that a PS4 player, for instance, when BGS playing in a PC player (for instance) faction system - how to you reconcile that the PS4 player gains some kind of bonus, while there is no extra difficulty? Please let us know your thoughts if you have any...

OPEN tokens or bonuses - or restricting BGS affect to Open actions - is demonstrably a vastly incoherent and therefore *IMBALANCED* suggestion.

And you wish to make these changes - and I quote - "That's[sic] why I call for *balancing*".

My view is that the suggested changes would be incoherent, inconsistent, and I find the whole argument to get there to be irrational and illogical. But that's just me. I wonder what Frontier will decide to do about it? Their game. Their call.


Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

As far as I'm aware, Frontier don't need my permission or your permission, or any group's permission to change the game in any way they feel inclined. Frontier don't need anyone to "allow" them to do so. They will do as they please. And do as they please they always have done.

Right from the get-go, when there was a plan to include an offline mode, it was decided by Frontier that all modes would be subject to the same BGS. A single BGS, not several fragmented over different modes. It was at this stage that the decision to host a dynamic changing single BGS that this design criterion then "trumped" the mooted offline mode, because an offline mode would lead to fragmented and basically non-dynamic BGSs.

Frontier chose this model of a single, all-player affected, dynamic sole BGS and in doing so sacrificed offline mode, *for the good of the game*.

In doing so, they ostracised and alienated many pledged contributors, many of which chose to take their money back due to the offline mode being shelved in favour of a single BGS


So there we have positive proof that Frontier are not averse to upsetting players to make the game they want to make. They chose a single BGS that would be, by Frontier's choice, affected equally by all modes as the baseline option.






Firstly:

In order to defend against a BGS attack, you have the *option* of playing the BGS. Y'all have the same options.
Conversely, in order to defend against a player attack, you have the *option* of PvP combat. And nothing else. No secondary option exists.

Are you seriously suggesting that you want a second option against BGS play? While at the same time calling that PvP combat isn't a time versus time grind? Which we all know that it *is*. While also implying that PvP combat isn't also "Forcing" a play style on someone. Which we also all know that it *is* - even just to prepare for it with engineered modules and forced ship choice and lots of time practicing escape moves, etc if players are to "git gud" (Oh how much do I loathe that phrase?) and even then it becomes a dead-end if a wing is involved versus a single player. You *know* this. Yet you are advocating "Forcing" this play style onto players. For the sake of "balancing"? Please don't make me laugh in utter disdain for your words because this is when credibility is lost.

Secondly:

*wall now has a head-shaped indentation*

Platforms.
Instancing.
Block lists.
Time of play.
P2P networking.
(UPnP.)

All of these criteria mean that you would have no *option* anyway, in a great number of cases.

Nobody previously ever answered my serious question of how you can reconcile that a PS4 player, for instance, when BGS playing in a PC player (for instance) faction system - how to you reconcile that the PS4 player gains some kind of bonus, while there is no extra difficulty? Please let us know your thoughts if you have any...

OPEN tokens or bonuses - or restricting BGS affect to Open actions - is demonstrably a vastly incoherent and therefore *IMBALANCED* suggestion.

And you wish to make these changes - and I quote - "That's[sic] why I call for *balancing*".

My view is that the suggested changes would be incoherent, inconsistent, and I find the whole argument to get there to be irrational and illogical. But that's just me. I wonder what Frontier will decide to do about it? Their game. Their call.


Yours Aye

Mark H

Always back to these connection problems. Ban em. Maybe there needs to be more crime and punishment, Thats actual punishment. I say we start with combat logging.

 

[Gunnet]

Always back to these connection problems. Ban em. Maybe there needs to be more crime and punishment, Thats actual punishment. I say we start with combat logging.

Why limit it to one exploit? Ban everybody who has ever deliberately obtained an unfair advantage by combat logging or cheating for modules. As long as Frontier is completely certain about their guilt, of course.

Quite reasonable, no? I'm sure you don't cherry pick which exploits are okay based on which types of players are more likely to use them.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Always back to these connection problems. Ban em. Maybe there needs to be more crime and punishment, Thats actual punishment. I say we start with combat logging.

This short response in no way answered any of the points Rampant made. Seriously, if you don't want to spend the time answering the numerous points being made in a post, and only make pithy irrelevant responses, what's the point in continuing discourse with you?

 

[Rampant]

Always back to these connection problems. Ban em. Maybe there needs to be more crime and punishment, Thats actual punishment. I say we start with combat logging.

No, the main point is one of separate platforms being intentionally segregated, yet, by deliberate choice and design, all affecting the single BGS. This is Frontier's fundamental foundation.
The secondary point is one of Instancing. Likewise, segregated game-space, even on the same platform, and this was deliberately, and with forethought, designed as the fundamental foundation of the P2P network solution. Players being segregated, by design choice, by Frontier.
The tertiary point is that block lists are also a fundamental construct and deliberate choice of Frontier that often means that players will be deliberately segregated by the P2P instancing algorithm.

The other main point is that even if all other things mean that your group would normally be instanced with an individual player, if that player is online at a different time to your group, then again you do not have any visibility of BGS activity taking place until you go online and log into the game for yourself. My main game time is 0515-0645 UK local time on weekday mornings prior to work. I'll wager that this is a time when I could play the BGS in Open without much risk of counter-activity from PvP defenders. I could accrue the bonus, if I wanted to if this token system were in force. You'd just better hope that the token doesn't also apply to my affect on the BGS as well, because that would make my job of attacking so much more streamlined. Without any extra risk. This is a case of be careful what you wish for, because this could also apply to cross-platform BGS attacks and cross-Instance BGS attacks, etc...

Lastly, there are network foibles.

So please don't summarise my strong points as simply "network troubles" and try to be dismissive of them as if they are not formative on the solution as you *want*. This is Frontier's deliberate design solution that we're discussing, not just network connection problems. And Frontier can, and should, do as they please on their deliberate design solutions.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

This short response in no way answered any of the points Rampant made. Seriously, if you don't want to spend the time answering the numerous points being made in a post, and only make pithy irrelevant responses, what's the point in continuing discourse with you?

Because, its just a big circle of talking. Proving things need change( and like all things change happens ). And these arguments are the same over and over.

Thats kind of my point. People have been speaking up about this for a really long time. To say people dont want it, is as dumb as me saying people dont want it to stay the same either. People like what they have. I recognize that. But there has to be some common ground. Balance. Im not asking for things to be taken away from you.

Literally nothing would change as long as it wasn't player faction oriented. You'll see, with the guilds coming. There will be an INFLUX of this talk on the forums. Because thats showing groups in game. And movable stations for attacks. They are starting to give those tools.

Anyways, its only going to get worse.

 

[NeilF]

Another comment about offering higher CR rewards in OPEN. I'd say once again, I don't think this is ideal. The reward for OPEN should be the gameplay experience not simply bribing people to play within it. It's not worked in the past to produce good game play (eg: Powerplay), so I'd suggest it's not ideal.


The game should orchestrate interesting and involved PvP gameplay via dedicated OPEN CGs, or missions along side a few logicial systems/areas within the BGS. ie: Such that if you're interested in PvP, there's a coupld of obvious go to locations/activites open to you to sign up and take part in (legal) PvP.

Meanwhile assign meaningful penalties to any/all illegal PvP destruction (no matter where it is).

 

[Roybe]

Never say never. I mean, we have Pilot Federation bounties and the sidewinder exploit closed for the dirty PVP'ers now.

Modes are not changing, PVP cannot be part of the BGS...so what is left to argue about?

And everyone has to admit that Braben made a game where PVP has become rare AND meaningful!

 

[Jockey79]

He's Blazin his own trail.

Yup, as he should be.

(Cannot +1 this as I've done another one of your posts recently)

While interesting, has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Let me try to explain my point a bit better.

"it was open" does not matter. Open mode does not change how the game works.
The event could have taken place in Mobius and the same number of people would have seen / interacted with Salome.

One of the articles I seen when I search Google for Salome info claimed that 3,000 took part (where I got that number from), but that is fundamentally wrong.
That many may have tried to take part, but with the instance limit being 32 (which won't happen naturally) then 3,000 people have wanted to take part directly but more than half of those would have not been able to be involved.

How many people do you think got to actually defend or attack Salome?
50?
100?

Out of 3,000!

The event itself was the wrong type of event to have for this game, as 99% of the player base would never be able to directly join in.
So it really doesn't matter if it was in Open or in PG (though I applaud being historically accurate so your point still stands )

I suppose in a cutthroat galaxy everybody has to be so sanctimonious at all times, specially during large lore PvP events in Open.

Large?

3,000 players approx out of 1.4 MILLION copies of the game sold.
You do know the Mobius group has over 40,000 members?

That event was made for a minority of players, not for all players or even a large group of them.
3,000 is not large in this context. And not all even got to join in properly, see my point above.

He didn't ruin it, the only dodgy thing was that he was flying with exploited modules arguably invalidating the outcome. So Drew could have rewritten what happened on the basis it wasn't legit, maybe had him thrown out of an airlock without a helmet for cheating at space-cards or something.

Oh so he was using cheated modules?
This I didn't know. Thanks for the info.

And look at the support from the PvP crowd, who claim the block function in game is cheating or changing network settings - funny how "cheating" is okay when they are doing it.

Ban em. Maybe there needs to be more crime and punishment, Thats actual punishment. I say we start with combat logging.

I'm glad I'm sitting down, never thought you'd post anything I'd agree with, ever.

Add decent C&P, ban repeat CL'ers and people who exploit in game mechanics like the engi modules exploit - ban the lot of them.

And these arguments are the same over and over.

As proven by your post history in SOG 4.
You come back with the same failed arguments.

People have been speaking up about this for a really long time. To say people dont want it, is as dumb as me saying people dont want it to stay the same either. People like what they have. I recognize that. But there has to be some common ground. Balance. Im not asking for things to be taken away from you.

"People"... you mean the same dozen members of Code and SDC

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=90583
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=145309
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=169599
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=216887

Feel free to list the those who are not in either Code or SDC that have issues with the mode system.

There will be an INFLUX of this talk on the forums.

Why will it?
It's the same 2 player groups complaining with the same arguments.