Saw that one. It was rather strange.
People who enjoy the open experience shouldn't be disparaged for it, just like people who enjoy PG/solo shouldn't be disparaged.
FD give us the choice, and we all should be happy for that.
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
Saw that one. It was rather strange.
People who enjoy the open experience shouldn't be disparaged for it, just like people who enjoy PG/solo shouldn't be disparaged.
FD give us the choice, and we all should be happy for that.
No, they aren't.
Real-world covert operations have real-world context that doesn't involve magically violating the physical constraints of reality. There is always the possibility of real world agents/proxies being directly intercepted and thwarted. Intelligence agents die, or wind up in someone's prisons, all the time. Tactics used to insulate themselves from their employers aren't analogous to switching modes in Elite. As far as we can tell, not one spy or saboteur who has ever lived was ever able to hide in a parallel dimension while influencing reality from absolute safety...and if one could, their ability to do so would imply someone else's ability to follow.
There is no real-world analog for the abstraction present in Elite: Dangerous. Technical constraints mean that some degree of abstraction is necessary in essentially any simulation, but this game is unusual in that it allows unnecessary and arbitrary abstraction in lieu of gameplay that it can and does simulate in more detail. Covert ops, which can be carried out in-game in the same mode/instances as one's opponents, don't need additional abstraction. Indeed, without other CMDRs present such gameplay cannot even exist except as a senseless layer of pseudo-pantomime. Abstracting away direct conflict is not the same as covert operations or proxies, it removes the need for the latter.
all the comparisons and reasons and catches and weasling aside
being attacked with the option to attack back being forcibly removed isnt a fun game mechanic
(negating effects of your attack != attacking back)
being attacked with the option to attack back being forcibly removed isnt a fun game mechanic
(negating effects of your attack != attacking back)
Question please for everyone , and apologies if this has already been discussed within this 144 page thread already but see attached screenshot below....
... What exactly does THAT ^ white sentence ( re: "Intercept other CMDRs performing actions here to slow other Power's progression" ) toward the bottom signify? Is that ^ like an example of somewhat "Open only" type dynamic that the FDevs were trying to implement & test ( using internal monitoring metrics ) on the PVP community for new PowerPlay 2.0 era & beyond?? -- And has anyone attempted to do as ordered ^ ? And if so, how many if any MERITS were awarded?
Last edited:
No, its just saying its an action that can be performed. Technically speaking, you could do it in PG, if the PG rules allowed it.
I don't know about all powers, but with Mahon you can also earn merits by killing opposing commanders.
And even without merits, with all powers, killing opposing power players will slow the opposing power down, assuming they are doing PP stuff.
The text should be changed to 'waste your time staring at a star all day while your opponents complete their missions risk free'...
Depressingly, that reminds me of how 'I got killed in Open' threads used to go on here:
1. Player complained of being 'ganked'
2. Pro-Open mode players would engage with them, offer sensible advice to remedy the issues that lead to the gank/suitable techniques to minimise risk
3. Forum Consensus responses begin in earnest, telling the player to use Solo or 'Join Mobius', use the block system or (at one point) engage in router fiddling/pulling their internet cable.
4. Coffee-shop psychology of PvPers begins with appropriate levels of pseudo-intellectual beard stroking.
5. Forum Consensus begin accusing Pro-Open mode players in the thread of having an 'agenda' to lure 'victims' into Open, or other such nonsense.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In some of the threads, no doubt - in others the advice was pretty much limited to "git gud or go Solo".
Big difference between 'Gankers' and Pro-Open Mode players, dude.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - simply pointing out that not all of the advice offered by those who engage in PvP was constructive or helpful.
Well it works both ways, advice to just simply block or go straight to Solo without passing go isn't always constructive or helpful either.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Of course. It depends very much on the play-style preference of the player offering the advice and their motivations.
No, it isn't "Open Only". You can kill CMDRs in PG's as well.
It is PvP content, which I think is a great way to encourage PvP in the game.
There's one thing that's emerging in the game right now which could only be countered by Open Only Powerplay: what if a community wants to challenge a Power and keep their system free from any Power?
Right now the only way to counter an acquisition attempt is by instancing with the players trying to acquire that and simply shoot them. Check Orrere for example.
BTW the game descriptions basically tells you that you can only stop an enemy acquisition out of range by stopping the players.
Maybe FDev really designed Powerplay to be Open Only after all.
Right now the only way to counter an acquisition attempt is by instancing with the players trying to acquire that and simply shoot them. Check Orrere for example.
BTW the game descriptions basically tells you that you can only stop an enemy acquisition out of range by stopping the players.
Maybe FDev really designed Powerplay to be Open Only after all.
AXI kicked Antal out of the Pleiades. Without open only.
If they’re not playing PowerPlay, why would they care? Seriously, I only really care about three systems as far as PowerPlay is concerned, and two of those systems I don’t care who’s in charge, only that I’ll support my Power there for role playing reasons.
Plenty of threads as I recall from PMF runners who weren't happy with it, or the concept of potentially being dragged into powerplay to keep it out of 'their' systems.
You can undermine a power already in control, but you can't resist an acquisition attempt. It's different.
I guess the UI is already Open Only AHAHAHAH
You can do that in PG's. As explained above.
Our attempt at blockading George Lucas in Leesti from non-Alliance pledged CMDRs is a perfect example of why Powerplay 2.0 should be Open-only. It’s literally impossible to keep other hostile CMDRs from access to the rare commodities there which they then use to advance their power that is enemy to our own.
There at least needs to be a penalty for Solo/PG Powerplay, say 50% or less of the merits since it’s a mode that allows CMDRs to bypass attempts to counter their activities. Less risk should yield less reward. This way though, Solo/PG CMDRs can still take part, but at a reduced influence level since there is no way to counter them or see who is undermining you.
I feel if something isn’t done to change this, Powerplay 2.0 will eventually suffer the same fate as PP1, where it becomes a grind-fest with no real engaging and fun gameplay that is mostly abandoned/ignored. This same argument could also be made for BGS as well. By keeping it Open-only or having greater reward for open play, it will give incentive for CMDRs to work together and foster a greater sense of community. We could potentially have some of those epic player driven battles that are legendary in other games. Think back to Salome’s run to Tionesla years ago, and how many CMDRs logged on to participate in Open.
I think PP2 has great features and really adds something missing to the game, and by its nature is made for CMDRs to compete against each other on an open battlefield. If it continues to have ways for players to easily sidestep its competitive features, I think it’ll fail once the “new car smell” wears off.
There at least needs to be a penalty for Solo/PG Powerplay, say 50% or less of the merits since it’s a mode that allows CMDRs to bypass attempts to counter their activities. Less risk should yield less reward. This way though, Solo/PG CMDRs can still take part, but at a reduced influence level since there is no way to counter them or see who is undermining you.
I feel if something isn’t done to change this, Powerplay 2.0 will eventually suffer the same fate as PP1, where it becomes a grind-fest with no real engaging and fun gameplay that is mostly abandoned/ignored. This same argument could also be made for BGS as well. By keeping it Open-only or having greater reward for open play, it will give incentive for CMDRs to work together and foster a greater sense of community. We could potentially have some of those epic player driven battles that are legendary in other games. Think back to Salome’s run to Tionesla years ago, and how many CMDRs logged on to participate in Open.
I think PP2 has great features and really adds something missing to the game, and by its nature is made for CMDRs to compete against each other on an open battlefield. If it continues to have ways for players to easily sidestep its competitive features, I think it’ll fail once the “new car smell” wears off.