The Open v Solo v Groups thread

Brrokk

Brrokk
Morbad said:
In the current system, this is generally true, but the current system obviously isn't the scenario being proposed.
...
Click to expand...
Actually I don't think it's like that. I haven't seen anyone making realistic proposals to change the BGS so that it becomes a new scenario with incentives for PvP activity. PowerPlay yes, not the BGS.

Requests for Open-only effects in the BGS so that you could "play" the BGS by exploding other players are, IMO, always in one of two categories: (1) ignorant of how the BGS works and what it's for, or (2) bad-faith arguments using the BGS as a convenient Trojan horse.
 
Last edited:

Felix DiCestria

Felix DiCestria
Riverside said:
I got back to the bubble yesterday & have quickly slipped back into my old routines of managing wars, elections, expansions & retreats. I've had a dozen or so random encounters (o7'd every one, only one replied). Two reacted to my presence (one looked like they were trying to get behind to interdict but I was only passing through the system & I jumped out before they got close, one changed path & dropped out of supercruise, I presume to evade me).

It is noticeable that there is a lot of traffic in systems with a rescue megaship but no ganker types that I have seen so far (in Odyssey). Legacy feels like solo it's so quiet, not tried 4.0.
Click to expand...
Depends on the rescue ship and time I suppose. Some seem to be noticeably busier than others.
 

Morbad

Morbad
Brrokk said:
Actually I don't think it's like that.
Click to expand...

Don't think it's like what?

Brrokk said:
I haven't seen anyone making realistic proposals to change the BGS so that it becomes a new scenario with incentives for PvP activity. PowerPlay yes, not the BGS.
Click to expand...

There are no realistic proposals and never have been. Even the most minor of proposals are utterly beyond the pale. No one expects Frontier to change anything meaningful.

Brrokk said:
Requests for Open-only effects in the BGS so that you could "play" the BGS by exploding other players are, IMO, always in one of two categories: (1) ignorant of how the BGS works and what it's for, or (2) bad-faith arguments using the BGS as a convenient Trojan horse.
Click to expand...

Your assessment ignores the context fundamental to any such proposal.

It should be obvious that if BGS influence has to be delivered in a setting where one can be intercepted and interfered with that such interference will reduce the rate at which such influence can be delivered.

It should be equally obvious that if punishing consequence mechanisms existed, in addition to the above, that attrition, such as that inflicted by direct PvP, would be able to considerably shape BGS activity by removing CMDRs from play for protracted periods of time.

As for 'Tojan horse', I'm not even sure what that would mean in this context. Open-only BGS proposals are explicitly and nakedly requests to be able to manipulate the BGS by crippling CMDR actions via direct attacks upon CMDRs and their assets, which is entirely rational and would make perfect sense in a game that cared about making sense. It's no more a Trojan horse than expecting a WWII strategic simulation to acknowledge that sending millions of tons of freight to the bottom of the ocean with your u-boats will harm your opponents economy and probably be way more enjoyable gameplay for a significant fraction war gamers than just trying to out-ship each other in a setting where everyone's assets are magically untouchable.

The BGS exists to provide an immersive and dynamic backdrop to the setting; which is something I argue it fails at because it's so narrow and disconnected. The level of abstraction present in BGS influence is also entirely inconsistent with how the rest of the game is presented.
 
Last edited:

CMDR Cknarf

CMDR Cknarf
“Here’s some advice for how to survive out there, good luck cmdrs!”

[quotes above post]“Yeah, we’ll SOME PEOPLE don’t want anyone to use the block function.”

“Right, but what does that have to do with what I— never mind. Anyway, the other modes are an excellent solution to the problems you’re hav—“

[quotes above post]“SOME PEOPLE don’t want anyone to use other modes.”

“What does that have to do with any—“

[third party, quotes above post] “Ganking a ship that can’t fight back is cowardly.”

“Are… are you guys just quoting me and posting your general opinion regardless of what I’m saying?”

[fourth party, responding to post 20 pages ago. Quotes a secondary post, unrelated to response] “POWERPLAY SHOULD BE OPEN ONLY.”

[Fifth party, quotes all above posts. Entirely different argument ensues.]

This exact exchange, or a slight variation, will continue to repeat itself as new posters join, redirected from their duplicate threads.
 

Riverside

Riverside
Robert Maynard said:
Not really, given this:
Click to expand...

Again I think you are looking for reasons to disagree (nitpicking) rather than reasons to find the common ground in my general statement that the thread is perpetuated by people trying to save others from themselves.

You see no common ground. I do:

You are not interested in PvP, but you want to be able to play in an open environment & not be harassed by the possibility of PvP. You play in a private group & occasionally argue for an Open PvE proposal.

I am not interested in PvP, but play in Open & do not let 'bullies' dictate what I do (some I wind up, many I befriend). I don't mind if I get shot at & if I my ship is destroyed take it with good grace. If I feel I am not in the mood to be able to take 'being harassed' in good grace, then I will play in Solo (or a group in theory, I'm not a member of any any more).

There is common ground, we probably play in similar ships in a similar way. There are differences, you are probably more social, I am probably more target focused (based on the Bartle tests a few pages back).

Look for the common ground imo, there is far more of it (even with a killer) than 'just' that we all play the same game. Our playstyles are on spectrums, not classified by a series of boxes.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
Riverside said:
Again I think you are looking for reasons to disagree (nitpicking) rather than reasons to find the common ground in my general statement that the thread is perpetuated by people trying to save others from themselves.
Click to expand...
Identifying reasons where agreement may not be reached might be perceived as "nitpicking", just as seeking to ignore them may be seen as "attempting to gloss over them".
Riverside said:
Look for the common ground imo, there is far more of it (even with a killer) than 'just' that we all play the same game.
Click to expand...
To what end? Where common ground exists, where there is none is also of interest.
Riverside said:
Our playstyles are on spectrums, not classified by a series of boxes.
Click to expand...
No disagreement on that point.
 
Last edited:

Helmut Grokenberger

Helmut Grokenberger
Not to disturb your bickering ;), but I just dropped in to add another datapoint to the neverending debate. The last two weeks I was running primarily evac missions in Thargoid alert systems. I was doing it mainly to get a few more flight hours down to re-learn flying with my new twin-stick setup, so I didn't really care what happened as long as I sat in the cockpit.

I am flying in a somewhat fast and well protected Python these days (because Thargoids), so I decided to do it in open. Shocking, I know. It was harmless, and kind of nice to run into so many CMDRs doing stuff for the war effort. I was not ganked, in fact I didn't meet any of them. So there you go. It is possible. But I think there was never any real doubt.

I still stand by my original statements about the ganking community and their less likeable specimens (I still don't like them), and maybe it is just a matter of time (or time zones) until they swarm the rescue ships - or maybe it is the distance from the other hotspots. Maybe the gankers also lose a bit of their sinister image if you are getting used to be ganked by Thargoids anyway. Who knows. It still would be awesome to be able to go to ShinDez or Sol and feel like going to a mall on saturday afternoon instead of running the idiot gauntlet (oh crap I said idiot again. Sue me :devilish:).
 

Riverside

Riverside
SteveWW57 said:
The common ground is wanting to play in open and meet people.
Some of the people that can be met will only be in open to destroy anyone that they can.

Steve
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. if you can play in a way that means those trying to kill you don't bother you, you can be as social as you like & all you have to deal with is the guilt trips, verbal abuse and pad blockers. Win!
 

TiberiusDuval

T
Riverside said:
Again I think you are looking for reasons to disagree (nitpicking) rather than reasons to find the common ground in my general statement that the thread is perpetuated by people trying to save others from themselves.

You see no common ground. I do:

You are not interested in PvP, but you want to be able to play in an open environment & not be harassed by the possibility of PvP. You play in a private group & occasionally argue for an Open PvE proposal.

I am not interested in PvP, but play in Open & do not let 'bullies' dictate what I do (some I wind up, many I befriend). I don't mind if I get shot at & if I my ship is destroyed take it with good grace. If I feel I am not in the mood to be able to take 'being harassed' in good grace, then I will play in Solo (or a group in theory, I'm not a member of any any more).

There is common ground, we probably play in similar ships in a similar way. There are differences, you are probably more social, I am probably more target focused (based on the Bartle tests a few pages back).

Look for the common ground imo, there is far more of it (even with a killer) than 'just' that we all play the same game. Our playstyles are on spectrums, not classified by a series of boxes.
Click to expand...
Point is that due to limitations of group system, most of times it is just like solo. Only really social mode is one that is PVP enabled.
 

Riverside

Riverside
TiberiusDuval said:
Point is that due to limitations of group system, most of times it is just like solo. Only really social mode is one that is PVP enabled.
Click to expand...

I remember PGs had a limit of 100 players I think? That cap had been increased a few times, I suppose you could say FDev never really expected them to be used in the way they have been. They probably just expected players to use open.

Darrack said:
Open is greener grass? :ROFLMAO:

O7
Click to expand...

The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence :) In my culture, this is a common expression. It's a set up that pays off in a later post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom