The Open Only Incentive

[Brrokk]

The tread is not about PvP. Anyone that can read and has common sense can see that.

Quite the reverse.

 

[Old Duck]

Donuts. And goats cheese.

NOW we've got an interesting topic

 

[V'larr]

No thanks. Open does not need incentives, nor would this suggestion motivate me to play in it.

 

[Speedcuffs]

Massive spawn rates for HGEs in open.

 

[ethelred]

We don't need incentives to play in Open, maybe we need more incentives for piracy, bounty hunting and non-asymmetric PvP.

 

[Old Duck]

We don't need incentives to play in Open,

I'd like more incentives to play in Solo, like NPC bridge crew instead of the broken multicrew feature, and NPC wing mates for hire, like mercs in Skyrim.

 

[xondk]

As of now there's no point playing in open unless one wants to. If you don't want PvP/ganking, you just go solo or pg and do everything you can do in open be done with it.
But what if there was something in open that everyone wants but you can only get it if you play open?
Here's my idea:
After 4 weeks of open only playing, you get access to "spice" or call it whatever, that gives you a 100-150% FSD boost. There's a module to store it, it gets used up so it needs refills.
This stuff is mined/milked and sold in only one place in the galaxy, that happens to be an anarchy system with a station/city called something like Mos Eisley. It is Dangerous to go there, but you can hire commanders to wing up and escort you in if you're not so sure of yourself in surrounding systems.
Spice is what makes trade faster, exploration more efficient and moving around combat builds less of a pain. Everyone wants it.


Do You?

Why? what is so special about open? why would people need to play in open?
The only thing it would affect right now is the amount of targets PvP'ers have, if "PvP'ers" and I use the term generally, feel like they have too few targets, they only have themselves to blame.
For PvP you need other people to be your victims.
For most anything else, other then group events, you do not 'need' other people, and especially as victims to your actions. So yeah.

 

[iain666]

Everyone wants it.


Do You?

Hmm, let me think.

No.

 

[ethelred]

I'd like more incentives to play in Solo, like NPC bridge crew instead of the broken multicrew feature, and NPC wing mates for hire, like mercs in Skyrim.

Absolutely this. Big ships should need an NPC crew by default.

I talked about having NPCs skilled in a particular area (&getting better) back in the day.

Like Isambard here loves engines. Always tinkering with them. Sure, when we boost there's a slim chance they'll go haywire but hey - look at my top speed now.

Make a richer game for everyone, and put fundaments on those bloody empty seats.

Also, railgun turrets.

 

[Mowerman]

You want me to play in Open? Pay my PS+ subscription and I'll consider it

You would only be in open vs other ps4 players. It's not all in on the cross play.

 

[Velixar]

Sorry op. Like the other topics when 90% of the people dislikes the idea. I have to agree with that 90% of the people. It has nothing to do with any Devs video or a a outsider poll. It the people on this topic.

 

[Lancer_206]

There should be a way to stop people undermining in PG / solo though.
Obviously everything ingame has its effect on the bgs.
So why not have PG and Solo actions on the BGS be 25-40% of what would be 100% in Open?

 

[Para Handy]

There should be a way to stop people undermining in PG / solo though.
Obviously everything ingame has its effect on the bgs.
So why not have PG and Solo actions on the BGS be 25-40% of what would be 100% in Open?

So shall we have people not on your platform only have 50%?

Anyone not in your time-zone shall be restricted to 30%?

This old argument has been dismissed so many times that I am surprised it is even a chestnut any more.


(How about the so-called 5C problem then?)

 

[Lancer_206]

The simple PG and Solo having less effect on the bgs wouldn't be hard to implement.

 

[Old Duck]

There's another thread going where the griefers are actively trying to get people to switch to PG and Solo, and then we have these threads actively trying to "incentivize" people to play in Open. Make up your mind!

 

[Brrokk]

There is. I find the presence of both threads at the same time a bit mind boggling.

 

[Lancer_206]

Ok I didn't know that lol.
I'm not a greifer and our group isn't a greifer group.
It just infuriates me that someone can pop into PG or Solo and start undermining when you know they are on the same platform.

 

[Old Duck]

Ok I didn't know that lol.
I'm not a greifer and our group isn't a greifer group.
It just infuriates me that someone can pop into PG or Solo and start undermining when you know they are on the same platform.

Even if they were in Open, you are more likely to negate their actions with your own BGS actions than you would be by attempting some sort of PvP counter-strike or blockade. Though FWIW, Open-only would likely put a damper on the alleged bot problem (something I don't worry about on console).

 

[AtotheCtotheG]

As of now there's no point playing in open unless one wants to.

Yyyeah, and...?
That’s a good thing. Players shouldn’t feel artificially compelled to play the game in open. Not when griefing/ganking is so prevalent. This idea is super bad.

 

[iain666]

It just infuriates me that someone can pop into PG or Solo and start undermining when you know they are on the same platform.

They can do it in Open and there's every chance you'll still not end up in an instance with you so it's no different to them being in a different game mode to you. Since it is impossible with the current game to ensure that everyone in a system in open can see everyone else in that system in open trying to force people into open won't make a blind bit of difference to whether you can see them doing something and attempt to actively intervene in their efforts.