I think that what players actually want is unrelevant when you want to balance things. I could be advantaged by having X10 merits for a specific activity, but that's unrelevant when you are trying to balance things.
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If what players want is to be disregarded, and given that PvP (or the potential for it to occur) is not rewarded in this game, why should Frontier listen to calls for "balance" from some players?
How would you do that? Would you organize people to sit outside the station in shifts in order to stop people turning up and buying rares?
That sounds like work to me, boring work, not playing a game.
If demand for open only is so high, why are people complaining about so many people playing in PG/solo? Surely they should have their hands full with all the open only proponents flying around in open! More than enough to keep them busy!
Or, if I were to go out on a limb here, either there are already a majority of PPers in open, but due to the size of the galaxy putting everyone in open wouldn't make a big difference, OR, it means that there aren't that many open only proponents. Bonus hypothesis, many stated open-only proponents are also flying in PG/Solo because what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Or, if I were to go out on a limb here, either there are already a majority of PPers in open, but due to the size of the galaxy putting everyone in open wouldn't make a big difference, OR, it means that there aren't that many open only proponents. Bonus hypothesis, many stated open-only proponents are also flying in PG/Solo because what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Again: semantics.
Right now we have a big issue in balancement that could be solved by rewarding a far less efficient game mode which is only "optional".
FDev will make their choices and will face the consequences of those choices as any company does.
I think they should do in a way. You think they should do another. I think the game will be commercially speaking more appealable with more open encounters. You don't think so.
Fair enough.
But here we have people talking about disaster and calamity over a much needed rebalancement process to make this mechanic work better for the game itself.
And the game is all about numbers. Number of players playing. Money spent. Etc.
It's a bet I think they could do and they could benefit from. You don't think the same.
It's as simple as that.
But some things must be acknowledged, like Open being less effective than PG. Denying this simple factor shows how much one is biased talking about all this matter.
Always has been, always will be.
You confuse people thinking it would be better or not and people spending their time to vouch for one or the other idea.
Only thing that matters is if the product would be better or not by doing things differently. In 10 years of "all modes are equals" the game never really had the success I think it deserved. Then you look at other MMOs without this kind of mechanic and see them being far more successful than Elite Dangerous.
Makes me wonder about the unexpressed commercial potential of Elite Dangerous.
I guess the only way to actually see what it happens would be to give a +50% merits bonus for Open activities and then to see how the player base will do.
yes. thats the point.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which, given that it is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning, would seem to be rather important in communication.Again: semantics.
As other players are optional in this game, that playing among other players may impede ones ability to complete the PvE actions that affect game features remains a matter of choice for each player. One need not enjoy or even tolerate in-the-same-instance PvP to play this game - so the biases expressed by those who do and those who don't are to be expected.
So it's ok to force people in PG because they might be more effective but it's not ok to incentivize open with higher rewards because their choice make them less effective.
Double standards, as usual.
semantics? More like pure sofism. But I think everybody is quite used to that from your side in all these years of discussions. Was just making an observation.
As to what would make it better for the game overall, well, surely that depends on what sorts of players are attracted to the game. Based on observation, it seems the majority are happy with modes, which contributes to its success. An open only game might attract some and turn off others. I believe the losses would outweigh the gains, thereby hurting FD in the long run.
But its been suggested before, one way to determine this would be to spin up a separate open only universe. If the open only proponents are correct, this would attract many players to the game and everyone would get what they wanted!
So it's ok to force people in PG because they might be more effective but it's not ok to incentivize open with higher rewards because their choice make them less effective.
Double standards, as usual.
Nobody is forcing anyone into PG. We hear claims all the time that open only is not that bad if you "git gud". We've heard this for a decade now. If someone thinks open is better, then play in open, with the pros and cons that come with it.
I've made the point in the past that solo is the hardest mode, since you can't wing up in it. Open is way easier and quicker to earn money/merits/whatever in than solo, due to this ability. Open is way more effective, if you have in-game people to team up with.
And, as a rule, its not the haulers who are calling for open only. Its the PvP combat players. For them, open is as safe as houses already.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It is up to each player how they choose to play the game, noting that they can't force others to play the game how they want them to.
We all bought a game where no player needs to engage in PvP, ever - that some rather obviously cannot accept that is neither the fault of the game nor of the players who do accept the game design.Double standards, as usual.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It has long been the wish of some of those who enjoy PvP to be able to punish players who don't need or choose to play with them.
Well success is not given but which players you want, but how many you want.
Always been a fan of splitting the two universes but it should have been done years ago, it's too late for that. Would sign tomorrow for that don't get me wrong. But not something I believe Fdev would do.
Worth noting Open is safe for a PvP player even when they're doing PvE based activities such as trading..
Why you might ask? Because we're familiar with how interdiction mechanics and surviving hostile encounters works. Its that simple, we learned from the game mechanics, we didn't shy away from them.
Whilst grinding some rares to see how overtuned it really was, I had countless ships try to interdict me while I was in a T-8, I think I lost one interdiction and still didn't bite rebuy for it. (basically no engineering on the vessel aside from g3 drives), its about how you manage the situation, there is no cut an dry outcomes should you be familiar with the way interactions such as that operate.
Always with this wording. "Punishment". "Tragedy". Let's try to see it in a positive matter. "Incentivize the ones that choose a less effective way to do things for balancement and not forcing open players to fight against Pg players by their rules". +50% is not that much if you think about it.
which is functionally equivalent of rewarding those able and wanting to do so. (about the 50% merits)
noone is forcing you to open by having 50% bonus to merits.
we also bought a game that boasts cutthroat galaxy.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Always with the attempts to play down the penalty levied against those who don't share an optional play-style.
As i said, i think it would lead to less players overall. Unless players could find a way to get the same experience in Open as they get in PG/solo (port blocking, block lists - and if FD could stop that, then the player is gone).
And its not too late to split the universe. And if you believe that it isn't too late for FD to reverse course on a 10 year policy of having modes, then i don't see why you think its too late for a split universe.