The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Robert Maynard]

That statement means you haven't watched Rinzler's video. Do you have an idea how fulfilling it is to escape a ganker?

Watched it once - didn't like the "style".

As mentioned earlier, some enjoy the frisson of PvP and, presumably, escaping it if desired. Some have no interest in providing the gankers with content of any kind.

Elite still has the best 6 vector flight model and although BGS are PP have many flaws no other game comes close to all those mechanics (flying and economics) in a single game.

The flight model is an enjoyable part of the game - even if one is not particularly interested in combat. Whether the fact that features are mode shared means they are flawed, or not, in the opinion of players probably has to do with each player's preference, or lack thereof, for PvP.

It's a fact that Elite player base is dwindling and the indecisiveness whether ED is mmo or single player game plays a big role in that.... just look at Star Citizens and the player base it attracted being build as a mmo only.

Stat Citizen pitched with a PvP slider as part of the design - its removal is just one of the broken promises of that game (along with the schedule). As and when it is released we'll see how well it does when there are no more resets and player progress, or lack thereof, is persistent.

Frontier don't seem to be "indecisive" - they choose to offer the shared galaxy with no requirement to play among players to experience and affect it - that some players don't like this design is obvious, and has been since the game design was published. That has not seemed to change Frontier's position.

 

[Darrack]

That statement means you haven't watched Rinzler's video. Do you have an idea how fulfilling it is to escape a ganker?

Elite still has the best 6 vector flight model and although BGS are PP have many flaws no other game comes close to all those mechanics (flying and economics) in a single game. It's a fact that Elite player base is dwindling and the indecisiveness whether ED is mmo or single player game plays a big role in that.... just look at Star Citizens and the player base it attracted being build as a mmo only.

When they actually finish it and yes im one of those idiots that lumped out 50quid when it started we can compare the two games, because atm SC isnt a working game.
SC is something you log into for half an hour and realise it will never be anywhere close to being as good as Elite.

O7

 

[Ettanin]

If you seek a game where face to face PvP is forced, Elite Dangerous is not that game, never had been and never will be.

PvE sells.

Open world PvP is casual-hostile, no matter how grindy or not grindy a game is, because everyone progresses at different paces. PvPers tend to hunt down newbies until they leave the game because PvPers hate losing, especially if defeat means full loot or lost progress.

Star Citizen is infused by endless hype, lives on the hype and will die off once the stream of money one way or another ends. EVE online itself turned to pay-to-win mechanics to sustain itself and will only become progressively more expensive over time as the playerbase itself stagnates or slowly thins itself out.

PvP-focused games and any other game in which participation with other players is mandatory are alive on borrowed time.

 

[Ettanin]

I have a proposition for everyone PvP centric:

Make a counterpart to Mobius in which blocking is forbidden and anything PvP is permitted or even encouraged.

 

[darkbanefox]

I have a proposition for everyone PvP centric:

Make a counterpart to Mobius in which blocking is forbidden and anything PvP is permitted or even encouraged.

This would change nothing as the crux of argument is that people in PG/Solo are able to influence Open with zero opposition. Making a new PG would do nothing to resolve said issue.

A secondary issues being that the universe is largely empty due to the lack of everyone being visible in open.

As you seem to like comparing to other MMOs, most every other MMO with PvP uses a flagging system but everyone still instances in one world or multiple instances of one world should an instance overflow. Very few if any tend to use frontiers style.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I have a proposition for everyone PvP centric:

Make a counterpart to Mobius in which blocking is forbidden and anything PvP is permitted or even encouraged.

It is already that for us... no blocking, open only.

 

[CMDR The Riz]

I have a proposition for everyone PvP centric:

Make a counterpart to Mobius in which blocking is forbidden and anything PvP is permitted or even encouraged.

Wait - isn't that called the San Tu system, or is that not a thing anymore?

 

[Ettanin]

This would change nothing as the crux of argument is that people in PG/Solo are able to influence Open with zero opposition. Making a new PG would do nothing to resolve said issue.

Face to face PvP doesn't affect the BGS at all, quite the contrary - it harms the currently dominant faction (which can be your own) because it lowers security.
You don't even know which commander works for which faction so you can accidentially commit a blue on blue without knowing.
Power Play PKs don't grant merits. They merely negate uncommitted merits. They only stall fortification or expansion but will never negate or stop it due to the nature of instancing.

The BGS and PP arguments are often used by gankers to cite a reason to force the unwilling.

I already said it and say it again: If you want people willing to gank each other with no restrains whatsoever, create a PG for that and make everyone likeminded join it.

 

[Sylveria]

If you want people willing to gank each other with no restrains whatsoever, create a PG for that and make everyone likeminded join it.

One would figure this many years of bickering later, the PvP groups would have organized one that rivals Mobius by now...

 

[BaconofDeath]

Power Play PKs don't grant merits. They merely negate uncommitted merits. They only stall fortification or expansion but will never negate or stop it.

 

[StellarKnight]

5

Face to face PvP doesn't affect the BGS at all, quite the contrary - it harms the currently dominant faction (which can be your own) because it lowers security.
You don't even know which commander works for which faction so you can accidentially commit a blue on blue without knowing.
Power Play PKs don't grant merits. They merely negate uncommitted merits. They only stall fortification or expansion but will never negate or stop it due to the nature of instancing.

The BGS and PP arguments are often used by gankers to cite a reason to force the unwilling.

I already said it and say it again: If you want people willing to gank each other with no restrains whatsoever, create a PG for that and make everyone likeminded join it.

I play in a Power Play group which is only in Open and can assure you that enemy commanders can definitely slow down the progress with face to face PvP. This goes both for BGS activities and PP merits. The game is so much more fun when there is a challenge in it - after grade 3 engineering is done the only challenge can come if you meet another player.

With the current state of engineering grind I understand why there are people who do not fancy open - it's just too punishing to engineer new modules for a badly designed ship. That's totally on Fdev and looks like they don't care. Rolling grade 4 and grade 5 engineering is soo expensive in terms of materials - winding this down will be such a great improvement and is for sure a very minor change.

What I do not understand is the moaning about meeting danger in Open - if you die in an a fully engineered ship it was totally your fault. There is just no time for the ganker to kill you if you follow the advice from Rinzler's video.

 

[Ettanin]

i am not moaning, I have Solo, PGs and (preemptive) blocking and am good at researching in all channels for CMDR names of CMDRs i do not want to meet. That's the beauty of ED: F2F player interactions are entirely optional.

Blocking preventing instacing wouldn't be necessary if there was Open PvE, but alas, that's the only option.

You are moaning. You have no gankees. Not my fault.

If you expect ED to be a strict Open World F2F pvp game, then this game is not the one for you.

What I do not understand is the moaning about meeting danger in Open - if you die in an a fully engineered ship it was totally your fault. There is just no time for the ganker to kill you if you follow the advice from Rinzler's video.

not everyone has the time to learn or to watch stupid guides.

 

[Ettanin]

And guess what, forced PvP is still forced PvP, even if engineering grind is reduced.

 

[Ettanin]

after grade 3 engineering is done the only challenge can come if you meet another player.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Players are allowed to choose the difficulty they prefer through various means.

 

[cmdr Ramius007]

Allowing solo/pg in power play, when there is not fixed combat powers power play CZ exploit is extremaly bad IMO, also biggest mistake of frontier was allowing power play to be done is solo/pg, but i think Fdev didnt expected such popularity of power play, and how it evolved, currently, restricting PP influance in solo/pg would be extremaly beneficial, as only group of players we target with this change are veterans who make huge impact on power play, but dont lose anything in solo/pg, and if they can get somehow incentivized to play in open, they would do this, even just 30% merit bonus for all actions in power play would be very good for game, it would be just a fair play, currently we have 2 blocks of palyers: first is mixed, with significant playerbase hiding in solo/pg, that include impeiral powers, Grom and Mahon and other block that involve federal powers and remaining indenpendent powers. Just to confirm it's true, yo can see plenty of Grom palyers in open if their expansion is not endengered in any way, like very favourable triggers, but every time it's close, neutral triggers or slighty positive/negative you almost never see anybody.

 

[Darrack]

What I do not understand is the moaning about meeting danger in Open - if you die in an a fully engineered ship it was totally your fault. There is just no time for the ganker to kill you if you follow the advice from Rinzler's video.

Not interested in Rinzler with all due respect im very capable of going 1v1 with anyone or escaping an interdiction, but why should i?
Danger?, been there done that, i just want to do my stuff (PP BGS) in comfort.
Or as i am doing at the moment finishing off logging all available Tourist beacons without worrying about idiots.

The times ive done this stuff in Open ive never been challenged by anyone opposing what i was doing in PP.
Every time i got interdicted it was some muppet or a wing of muppets thinking their tough 3v1.

Whats the point? why should i play their game? This effecting BGS or PP is the biggest red herring that gankers use, how many of them actually do PP because those that tried to stop me as far as i was aware were not even pledged.
Lets also face the fact that Open is in fact EMPTY unless you go to one of the gank centrals, which is the main crux of the PvP community's whine, lack of targets!

if you die in an a fully engineered ship it was totally your fault

Really??? So i can run from a wing of murder boats in a T9??
If your saying mr wonderfuls video shows how easy it is to escape an interdiction so then again whats the point?
If its so easy why do gankers try to stop folks in the first place if there is no chance of a result?
Oh wait there are countermeasures to a targets countermeasures if you know what you are doing
Or are they just trying to grief and ruin other peoples game-play?

Still not a convincing argument for Open PvP

O7

 

[Darrack]

also biggest mistake of frontier was allowing power play to be done is solo/pg

Nope it was actually very clever as many folks would not be taking part in either BGS or PP if they had to engage in PvP.

O7

 

[Robert Maynard]

What I do not understand is the moaning about meeting danger in Open - if you die in an a fully engineered ship it was totally your fault. There is just no time for the ganker to kill you if you follow the advice from Rinzler's video.

There is no "danger" in the game - only opportunities for ones immortal space pixie of an avatar to lose some progress. Basically, destruction is only ever a waste of time, time that would need to be spent again recovering to the same position as before destruction.

The complaints about being preferentially targeted by players in Open likely stems from a lack of desire to engage in PvP - in a game where itsi-PvP is an optional extra. While some enjoy the frisson of a ganker attack, many seem not to - finding it not to be "fun". No-one needs to play with those who are not fun to play among, in this game.

Just because a ship is fully engineered does not mean that it is fully engineered for combat - players engage in other roles and those who tolerate the ganker mini-game need to compromise their builds to include the equipment required to survive one or more gankers in their G5 combat ships.

The gankers usually reduce the risk to themselves to an absolute minimum through engineering - then attack targets that pose little or no risk.

That players need to compromise their gameplay to prepare for the unwanted attentions of gankers who need make no compromises to their ships for a role other than its intended one means that only the targets need compromise their build to take combat into account.

As mentioned previously, for some players, the unwanted interactions forced by gankers represent a tediously predictable waste of limited game time. As the game does not require players to even tolerate, much less engage in, PvP to buy and play the game, it is perhaps unsurprising that the game has attracted players with no interest in PvP or in accommodating the desires of those players who do have an interest in PvP. While Frontier have indicated that the majority of players play in Open (at least some of the time) they have also indicated that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.

Thankfully this game offers players options as to who to play among / who not to play with - whether by game mode or, more specifically, using the block feature.

 

[Brrokk]

i am not moaning, I have Solo, PGs and (preemptive) blocking and am good at researching in all channels for CMDR names of CMDRs i do not want to meet. That's the beauty of ED: F2F player interactions are entirely optional.

Blocking preventing instacing wouldn't be necessary if there was Open PvE, but alas, that's the only option.

You are moaning. You have no gankees. Not my fault.

If you expect ED to be a strict Open World F2F pvp game, then this game is not the one for you.


not everyone has the time to learn or to watch stupid guides.

This. I'm happy with how the game works now. I have the options needed to control my interactions with other players. (I'd like one improvement: Open-PvE, which I think will come eventually if the game keeps going long enough).

The people moaning are the ones who overfished the pond. All the complaints are basically that I don't have to entertain them and they don't get opportunities to interrupt my gaming. Those aren't complaints I really care about.

 

[Robert Maynard]

For those who play in Open and don't like the fact that they share existing pan-modal game features with players in the other two modes there is a solution that does not involve removing anything from the players in Solo and Private Groups:

• Propose that Frontier create a new Open-only game mode with its own copy of the galaxy that only players in Open-only mode can affect.

This would have the benefit of giving the Open-only proponents their own galaxy to affect, unaffected by those who choose not to play with them while at the same time leaving the game exactly as it is for players who have no problems sharing their galaxy with players in all three game modes.

That'd be the most equitable solution, IMO.

Of course the galaxies would diverge - so transfer of assets between them would need to be disabled, as to permit it would suffer from trivial exploitation.