Whats the carrot for people who do NOT like combat part of game. Be it PVE or PVP? More combat? More possibility of forced combat?
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
For those who use game as Truck Sim in space it is like lets have marauding road pirates in EuroTruck sim, and make them compulsory.
Or is the idea to make PVE so punishingly difficult that there is no real distinction between it and PVP?
Its all about balance, which right now has been firmly in the 'nothing happens' zone for many years all over space. The difficulty slider in PvE should be the sec levels in systems and BGS states, all of which can be seen ahead of time- so this is not forced onto anyone- you choose to take that risk.
You already have forced combat now with SC interdictions, which people complain about endlessly because they are so repetitive- but is the only place it can happen (because like I said) NAVs are vestigial, and the areas around stations 100% instasafe. Thus, no NPC interaction, and reducing the variety and depth to day to day travel (such as A>B trucking).
The consequence of this is to allow parts of the bubble to get more dangerous- such as anarchy space which is tame and exploited endlessly. Its also useful for Powerplay because combat forms one of its pillars, and that the PvE in that is as thin as water.
At no point am I suggesting make PvE 'punishingly hard' for everyone- this is simply allowing the difficulty to ramp up further than it does now for those who want it- so that if you want an easy time stick to high or medium sec. If you want to risk it low or anarchy.
You can nowadays always go to tharg infested systems. Should be dangerous enough. Especially those maelmstrom ones
But that does not address human space, with its pirates, bounty hunters and navies. One system largely behaves like another, when a proper synergy of NPC PvE behavior, BGS state, sec state and player reputation (s.power, power and local faction) would craft something unique each time. While PvP difficulty is extreme, FD have a plethora of tools to tune low sec and anarchy for PvE.You can nowadays always go to tharg infested systems. Should be dangerous enough. Especially those maelmstrom ones
Basically what I think Tharg invasion was meant by Fdev to be answer for those wanting more dangerous PVE. Instead of remaking a lot of mechanics...
There is an inbalance in PvE and it is not always "easy". Besides from Thargoids, which is a choice to take part or not, there is an advancing threat by npc's depending on your combat rank. As a novice you can easily counter interdictions even in a fully loaded Type-9, or you submit and blast the interdictor with unengineered weapons and stock shields. Try this at level dangerous. Won't work.
The problem is basing combat on rank is superficial at best, and at worst silly, because its not really based on skills just time.
I would much preferred rank in combat to be a bit like a PvE PvP fight, where you get to a rank and another NPC will challenge you to a duel- so the ranks going up in combat would be for getting better at combat. This could have involved a lot more situational POI stuff (like a sore loser NPC sends in his mates).
General PvE difficulty should stem from BGS state, gov type, local rep etc.
The thing is its not remaking mechanics more so reverting some short-sighted changes and deficiencies within the actual heart of the game.
SpectralFX here,
I hail from a player group called "Lavigny's Legion", however, in this post I do not claim to speak on their behalf on this matter.
I just want to voice my opinion on this thread and reiterate what I've always believed.
On the matter of open vs solo, in regards to anything that involves players vs players interactions(Mainly BGS and Powerplay) I firmly believe that for player actions to be valid, it should be required to take said action in open play exclusively.
The reasoning behind this is as follow:
1. Cheating prevention: In typical MMOs, it is common for players to report bots (or suspected ones anyways) to game masters in order to alleviate their impact on the community.
With solo play, it is impossible for players to have any impact on that front since the bots can easily hide their behavior there.
2. Balance: as it stands, a current pvp meta build could, without effort, shred to pieces any hauler/pve ship with the outstanding exception of a shielded imperial cutter.
Conversely, in the current state of the game, pvp ship builds are enterily irrelevant to the outcome of a cycle since the bulk of player actions are taking place in private groups or solo play modes.
While neither are desirable outcomes (from a competitive stand point), open play only would at least force the devs to look into the 1st issue and address it, albeit concerns are to be had regarding the block feature that could work around an open-play only policy.
Finally, I must point out the short coming of peer to peer networking that makes for a very underwhelming online experience, especially during pvp combat.
In the past, other games (as for example, "For honor") were forced by player backlash to have dedicated matchmaking servers, as without it, constant latency based issues and game crashes are inevitable.
Kindly, thank you for reading all the way through if you did.
Have a great day.
I hail from a player group called "Lavigny's Legion", however, in this post I do not claim to speak on their behalf on this matter.
I just want to voice my opinion on this thread and reiterate what I've always believed.
On the matter of open vs solo, in regards to anything that involves players vs players interactions(Mainly BGS and Powerplay) I firmly believe that for player actions to be valid, it should be required to take said action in open play exclusively.
The reasoning behind this is as follow:
1. Cheating prevention: In typical MMOs, it is common for players to report bots (or suspected ones anyways) to game masters in order to alleviate their impact on the community.
With solo play, it is impossible for players to have any impact on that front since the bots can easily hide their behavior there.
2. Balance: as it stands, a current pvp meta build could, without effort, shred to pieces any hauler/pve ship with the outstanding exception of a shielded imperial cutter.
Conversely, in the current state of the game, pvp ship builds are enterily irrelevant to the outcome of a cycle since the bulk of player actions are taking place in private groups or solo play modes.
While neither are desirable outcomes (from a competitive stand point), open play only would at least force the devs to look into the 1st issue and address it, albeit concerns are to be had regarding the block feature that could work around an open-play only policy.
Finally, I must point out the short coming of peer to peer networking that makes for a very underwhelming online experience, especially during pvp combat.
In the past, other games (as for example, "For honor") were forced by player backlash to have dedicated matchmaking servers, as without it, constant latency based issues and game crashes are inevitable.
Kindly, thank you for reading all the way through if you did.
Have a great day.
BGS? Open mode gated. Okay, how about mile long blocklist then?
Bots used to cheat and cannot be discerned as most CMDRs play in solo/PG, and are thus hidden? I find this hard to believe.
You are advocating for forced PvP. Just because a trader visits and interacts with a station, influencing the BGS, this should not be a reason to force them into open and thus non consensual PvP. As has been pointed out many times, trying to interdict ships in a system is a waste of time. It is better to directly influence the outcome by fighting in CZs, gaining INF or dumping data or trading.
Steve
Last edited:
There was a well known incident involving bots hauling PP commodities some time ago.
Google should bring up the details without too much hassle.
Forcing open only for this would be a gross overreaction and I'm not aware of anything similar confirmed regarding the BGS which has to remain available to all modes as per the Kickstarter pitch.
I'm 100%.. no, 1000% with you! And don't forget about 5C affecting powerplay (now less than in the past).
We (Archon Delaine PP main group) adopted the open-play only policy for the same reasons.
This is PvP as well, I mean... players are not shooting eachother, but the affected features of the game belong (or may potentially belong) to players on both sides.
Even selling data to a station, supporting a PMF to win elections against another one might be seen as PvP-related action...
Direct confrontation between players shooting and competing for their own goals is just a part (may be the smallest one) of the in-game broader PvP activities.
So, why I shouldn't be allowed to force some one else to fight in open when he/she may indeed force me to sell explo-data to counter his/her actions?
I used the word force because some posters here are arguing about forcing other players to play how they do like... in other words: hypocrisy.
Last edited:
What a pity.
You have something to add?