Are you really that ignorant, or is this just the obfuscation typical of those on your side of the argument? How about lets go back to 2.1 when engineered NPC's were introduced in general to the populace so that you didn't have to be a criminal to encounter them. Let's explore that a little, shall we? And besides, from what I hear the ATR are still the equivalent of mobile station guns, so not sure what your point is.
If you want to encourage more PvE players into Open, educate folks on the stupidity of decisions like rollin' around with billions of credits worth of exploration data and no plan on how to offload it safely.
A trip to Beagle Point got me about 350M and I was only out a month. It is very easy to rack up billions in credits out there. Compound that with Explorer ships being little more than a hull wrapped around an FSD, limited Thrusters, and little shielding.
The point you completely avoided was that most Explorers WILL plan to avoid gankers by playing in Solo or Private groups. If you want to encourage them to play in Open, there needs to be a reason.
Right now, Open is unnecessary risk for a large percentage of the playerbase. Make it worth the danger and that will change.
A trip to Beagle Point got me about 350M and I was only out a month. It is very easy to rack up billions in credits out there. Compound that with Explorer ships being little more than a hull wrapped around an FSD, limited Thrusters, and little shielding.
The point you completely avoided was that most Explorers WILL plan to avoid gankers by playing in Solo or Private groups. If you want to encourage them to play in Open, there needs to be a reason.
Right now, Open is unnecessary risk for a large percentage of the playerbase. Make it worth the danger and that will change.
I've long been a proponent of increased financial/material reward for playing Open. Speaking to Frentox's OP, I think having missions populated with more dangerous, possibly engineered NPC's could be compensated with dramatically increased rewards, too.
Actually, it's fine here, too. And it seems that the "lake" is doing pretty good, despite all of you Mobius advertisers false advertising; I always see more people in Open than Group.
If Open is doing fine, there's nothing to worry about, right?
Personally, I fly in Open around 50% of the time, in Solo around 25% of the time, when I'm doing dull stuff and don't want to be distracted, and in Mobius around 25% of the time, when I want to hook up with friends to go sight-seeing.
I was simply pointing out that as long as there are nobbers who try to "beat the system" then there'll always be players who won't want to play in Open - regardless of how unlikely a decent C&P system makes ganking.
Surely you're not going to try and dispute that?
And what does this have to do with the OP, anyway? I think the last on topic post was mine from about 4 hours ago.
What are you smoking? The only tough NPC's that were introduced and then nerfed into oblivion were the 2.1 NPC's, and I have a news flash for you; it wasn't PvPers literally screaming their heads off for it.
What made them "tough" is their tendency to run away when you dropped their shields. This didn't make fights more dangerous, but it made them longer. This particular aspect was nerfed to oblivion (and good riddance), everything else was left as it was in 2.1 betas.
A trip to Beagle Point got me about 350M and I was only out a month. It is very easy to rack up billions in credits out there. Compound that with Explorer ships being little more than a hull wrapped around an FSD, limited Thrusters, and little shielding.
The point you completely avoided was that most Explorers WILL plan to avoid gankers by playing in Solo or Private groups. If you want to encourage them to play in Open, there needs to be a reason.
Right now, Open is unnecessary risk for a large percentage of the playerbase. Make it worth the danger and that will change.
Way to just repeat yourself like that somehow proves your point.
Here's some pointers so you can do it the next time in Open play: drop your data on the Highway as you go. Don't fly a poorly kitted Explorer. Throw some armor on there! Maybe you could even take some lessons in evasive silent running flying before you head out. If you're really worried, get some friends to escort you to a station and run cover when you return. Heck, isn't that Iridium Wing's entire thing? Failing that, drop your data at a place not known for player traffic.
The list goes on. Fact is, you're just making excuses for lazy thinking.
Way to just repeat yourself like that somehow proves your point.
Here's some pointers so you can do it the next time in Open play: drop your data on the Highway as you go. Don't fly a poorly kitted Explorer. Throw some armor on there! Maybe you could even take some lessons in evasive silent running flying before you head out. If you're really worried, get some friends to escort you to a station and run cover when you return. Failing that, drop your data at a place not known for player traffic.
The list goes on. Fact is, you're just making excuses for lazy thinking.
Coming from people who ignored the game advertising and design - that is rich.
Right from Day 1 it was clear PvP isn't the driving force behind the game. Let me refresh your memory......
The Wall of Information;
A quick look at the history of; and tech used to bring you this game (explains why some things are not possible).
Thanks to Roybe for for the link to the video.
From the Kickstarter; *And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*
The part about it being as much a MMO as CoD is already in your Wall of Text, the second KS post. His exact words were "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."
About he not wanting to call it a MMO early on, well, besides that very post hinting at it, and the Kickstart page not using that term even once, I remember hearing it in old video interviews from the KS era. The "I don't see it as an MMO in the traditional sense" line came out quite a few times before fans managed to finally convince DB that Elite Dangerous, as pitched, would qualify as an actual MMO.
There are other interesting things to find in those old interviews. For example, just from the Gary Whitta interview with David Braben and Chris Roberts, you have: (Part 1)(Part 2)(Part 3)(Part 4)
As reference for the following quote, here is Chris Roberts speaking about the Star Citizen equivalent of this thread (part 3, 5:30):
"And the key is kind of what David alluded to, which I think it's a debate that David has with his community and it's a debate I have with my community because there is definitely this whole sort of PvP and PvE sort of factions that go on and they're all pretty rabid. And so I think, and I think David also believes that you can sort of create a game that can cater to both sets of players and it will be okay. But it certainly is, that is, I would say if I were going to give you a touchpaper to set up a fight with your community that's the one to do it."
The immediate follow up by DB about PvE groups (part 3, 6:01):
"Well, the discussions have come up already. We have this concept of groups where you can join a group which doesn't allow or does allow it on the user choice."
Or this about the kind of game DB would want to play (part 3, 7:09):
"You know, so what I would I want from a game? I want to be able to play a great game without being griefed by teenagers, but having said that I do want there to be a feeling of risk out there."
Also this about what player interaction in ED was supposed to be about (part 3, 2:06):
"And so, I don’t mean necessarily every ship should be a player because then you get into a frame of mind that you can’t kill anything without really upsetting someone. I mean with Elite: Dangerous it’s still…a lot of the ships you encounter won’t be real players but we will call out, of the ships that you meet, who is a real player. We have a way of distinguishing them within the game. They’re actually part of this group of pilots that you’re part of and it will call out, above them say. Essentially what it means is “this is a real player,” but in the game fabric: “so this is a group who a member of the same organization as you.” We…you know, in other words we, we don’t want this game to be all about player vs. player kills, but the point is it encourages a lot of cooperation. And, it will be possible to do player vs. player kills if that’s what people want to do. "
All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)
Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."
Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)
Wikipedia; A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.
Oxford English Dictionary (Online); An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .
The Steam Store page;
Please note, "Single Player" and "Multiplayer" with "Co-op".
So not just an "MMO"
Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.
FuzzySpider
The mechanics of powerplay, particularly the interface between player and power being an almost direct copy of the community goal model, gives the entire experience an MMO-guild type feel to the gameplay.
Is this MMO-style a new direction for Elite: Dangerous? Or will you be still focussing on the single player immersive experience, even if that single player is playing in a universe filled with other players?
Thank's very much to you and the FDev team for all of your efforts. One or two subjective les of mine aside the game is the one I've been waiting for for years and I'm totally enamoured with it.
I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?
On that last point, Producer Ben Dowie reiterated that Xbox One and PC players won’t be playing head-to-head—although they’ll be playing in the same simulated universe, they’ll never encounter each other in space, likely because Microsoft’s Xbox patch cycle adds complexity to Frontier’s game update procedure. This means that PC players and Xbox players will often wind up on different clients, which means no head-to-head play. To that end, anticipated PC-centric features will likely land on PC first.
I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”
Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.
I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.
Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?
From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.
What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.
19:42
"Well I think the problem is this: Different people mean different things by saying MMOs, you know. I think we're massive (19:53) by most measures, in terms of we have a lot of people playing, all at the same time. We have instancing, but then you know so does every other or every MMO out there. (20:10) The case, you know, you look at the way Warcraft does it. Now the case is (20:15) where do you set the number. So currently it's you know around 32 players in a session plus NPCs and all that sort of thing. (20:23) You know we could go higher if it weren't for the NPCs, we could go higher if people had perfect network connections. You know if we had a LAN we could go way higher. You know this is the point. (20:31) And it's a case of balancing the experience and also how much data you have to exchange. You know it's a quality of the experience that I expect over time we will increase it.
"But are we an MMO? I think we are by all measures."
Ed speaks and then David adds:
"It's not an RPG in a sense that (21:09) you increase your personal stats but a lot of people play it as a role playing game. I think if that's what you want it to be then so it is I suppose. I don't think it really matters. Someone said 'That's a silly question. Such a waste of time.' Well there you go."
And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.
My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.
Now, one final Caveat. *As it stands currently*, we have time allotted in season two to work on Powerplay. These suggestions are just a part of that work - there is other stuff as well. However, I can't commit to the Unbreakable Vow, because it's very possible that in the fluid world of development, things might change!
I just wanted to set these ideas free and see how well they settle, so, comments welcome!
* This change, which remember is nothing more than a suggestion at this point, would have no effect on personal gain. It would affect success values for expansion, fortification and undermining only, not the merits you earned.
* It does not, and is not, meant to be a panacea to make the actual activities of Powerplay better. It's best to think of it as activity agnostic. That's not to say that we don't want to improve the activities (we do!), just that this is not aimed at that.
* The reason this benefit would only apply to Open as opposed to in Private Groups is fairly clear I think: we have no way to control distribution in Private Groups. Folk could start a Private Group where everyone was pledged to a single power. This would effectively then be Solo in terms of dealing with the potential threat of other Commanders.
* I would not want to introduce this into any aspect of the game except Powerplay because Powerplay is the only aspect of the game that explicitly uses the concept of adversarial multiplayer, as opposed to the more vague ways that minor factions operate.
The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.
On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that .
In this instance, blocking the Commander might prove quite useful.
When you block somebody, a couple of things should happen.
Firstly, you will receive no communications from them.
Secondly, during any transition where matchmaking is at work (so basically, hyperspace jumps, entering and exiting super cruise) you are much less likely to be matched with the blocked Commander.
Blocking becomes weaker when it comes up against friends (and next year, player wings), because if a blocked Commander is in the same session as a friend (say, because they haven't blocked the Commander, the blocking effect is overruled by the friendship matchmaking.
Outside of this case though, blocking should work fine.
The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.
Instancing is a pretty complicated calculation, affected by a significant number of checks, such as instance populations, quality of player connections, friends, wing members, blocked players, blocking players, recent connections (and possibly more - far cleverer folk than me work this out). The weightings for these elements varies as well - wing membership, for example, is an extremely strong weighting towards allowing a match up.
Whilst I'm sure that to some degree matchmaking can be influenced, the complexity and number of elements completely out of the player's control (or even knowledge) are a strong limiting factor.
At the end of the day, ignoring players is a completely personal choice, that *influences* the chance of meeting ignored players, reducing the *potential* for match making with them.
The reality here is there are a HUGE number of players that play the game for their own reasons and they may or may not align with yours. For others reading this post, I apologize for the sheer length of it, but I'm really tired of having these same old debates with people and I'm covering a wide range of questions/answers that normally get covered in multi-page thread-noughts in advance. I've wrapped my own thoughts in a spoiler tag to minimize the "wall".
The Technical Here's a bit of reality. FD created ED with P2P core networking, the BGS is tied into that, and ALL THREE MODES are tied into this as well. "Removing Solo/PG" to throw everyone into Open isn't going to happen because there's no central server system, and as of now, you can "block" using P2P. So to accomplish what you're asking, they would need to completely redo the entire base networking system to prevent people from blocking others on that level. Do you really think they're going to do that for just a (arguably "small") portion of their player base?
The Financial Let's just posit a small theory, shall we? All of these tired arguments usually allege that there's a "huge" portion of players that wish for this change, and that if it doesn't happen there's going to be some sort of (DOOOOM!!!) "mass exodus" of players who will leave the game, and "FD will be losing potential income", yada yada. Now, bearing in mind all the people who have already bought this game, the amount of money that's been spent so far, and a change to base gameplay functionality (if it were to happen) what do you think the financial repercussions would be? Just affection ONE of any of the three modes would result in a MASS request of refunds... so let's talk actual numbers, shall we?
Mobius PvE was created to help facilitate players who did not want PvP but still wanted to play together online (Co-Op gameplay)
This Private Group has far exceeded the 40,000 player limit and additional "Private Groups" had to be created to facilitate the additional numbers...
Think about that for a minute, then multiply just that number by the base cost of this game, not including any LEP's, Backers, Horizons purchases or additional Store (paintjobs, etc.) content purchased.
Are you getting the picture yet?
Now keeping numbers in mind- let's stick to the financial aspects here. The PvE content included in this game is available to ALL three modes, regardless of PvE or PvP playstyle. If you removed any one of the three modes, that would still be the case, correct? Let's now think about doing the same with PvP content, which is ONLY available to Open mode. How much more money do you think FD spends in addition to what's already existing in the game to ADD more PvP content and accessibility to it? Think of people coding, maintaining the equipment that helps to facilitate networking, logistics, etc.
So, keeping in mind all the aforementioned numbers here's a question:
Do you think it would be more financially viable for them to strip all the PvE content and make it completely PvP, or do the reverse and make it only PvE?
Here's a couple more questions:
How many times have you seen the PvE Community opening threads and spewing posts about removing content from Open and making it exclusively accessible to Solo?
How many times have you seen the PvE Community throwing tantrums and stomping their feet in the Forums or on Reddit about "Leaving the game" if more PvE exclusive content doesn't get added to the game?
Are you getting the "bigger picture" yet?
(Granted, you'll see the occasional post from a PvE player who is "bored" or whatever, but that's to be expected in any game. You'll see those on any forum, because a developer can't make everyone happy, all the time.)
PvP Players If you want Open to be "better" and want to draw more players into Open, I'd suggest you start banding together, organize some groups and "take out the trash", so it becomes a much cleaner place to enjoy the game. I'd love to see it become what it should have been originally- a huge expansive universe full of life, full of a wide range of players and game play, all doing different things and co-existing together. Pirates, Traders, Explorers, RP-er's, Miners, etc. People enjoying the game they love amongst others, with some being able to cooperatively play in PvP and some being able to cooperatively play in PvE, and some just doing their own thing on their own, without being bothered.
It's not going to be like that when you've got GSP's running around acting like psychopaths and there's (relatively) no consequence for them doing so. You want it to change? Then CHANGE it. You shouldn't need incentive, if your true motivation is "PvP combat", you've got all the incentive (and targets) you need. They're out there waiting for you. And if you keep laying into them, they'll eventually get tired of acting like they have been and quit or change their attitudes and start learning to co-exist.
"Wolf against wolf", not "wolf against sheep".
P.S. for those who care to read it (included in Spoiler tag to reduce the wall of text)
I only speak for myself- and have only done so. No one made me the "voice of Solo/PG's or PvE" here.
I really didn't want to start a "crusade" of PvE vs PvP or any of that. At first, I tried to reason with them... and that didn't work. They won't listen to reason. So now we have to defend our game-play styles because all they're doing with the negativity is driving away new customers because a few people didn't get what they wanted. And because they've got just as much of a right as "customers" to come into the forums and voice their opinions, there's no recourse but to continue to keep laying down reality. I/we don't get "paid" or "compensated" in ANY way, form or fashion for doing this, either. (neither does Jockey79, or any of the other more vocal players of the PvE community) I/we do it because I love the game and don't want to see it destroyed because of a minority few.
I see some in the PvP community spreading falsities, throwing tantrums, and trying their absolute damndest to get FD to change core functionality that affects ALL modes that would affect all players (PvE included) in order to facilitate their "Free For All Killfest" COD-in-space style gameplay. When throwing tantrums didn't work they started to spread toxicity into Reddit, the Official forums, Discord, and anywhere else they feel they'd garner support and be "heard".
Essentially the whole argument is "Remove Solo/PG's and give us our fish for our barrel or we'll burn down the game!!"
(That's it folks, that's the WHOLE strategy)
If you really want to see this game succeed, you should be very concerned. Make your own opinions known, because THEY certainly are.
Are you really that ignorant, or is this just the obfuscation typical of those on your side of the argument? How about lets go back to 2.1 when engineered NPC's were introduced in general to the populace so that you didn't have to be a criminal to encounter them. Let's explore that a little, shall we? And besides, from what I hear the ATR are still the equivalent of mobile station guns, so not sure what your point is.
Complaints on both sides got them shut down. Every time there are increases, though...the first out of the box with the complaints is the 'Oh mer gerd, they are god moded...and can't be killed...they are unfair to PVP...blah blah blah...'
Both sides annoy me on this...they both need to shut up, keep playing, and figure out how to deal with the changes.
Without that...everyone continues to lose.
Damn, Jason...you got Jockey to break out the 'wall'...now you went and did it!
If you want to encourage more PvE players into Open, educate folks on the stupidity of decisions like rollin' around with billions of credits worth of exploration data and no plan on how to offload it safely.
If Open is doing fine, there's nothing to worry about, right?
Personally, I fly in Open around 50% of the time, in Solo around 25% of the time, when I'm doing dull stuff and don't want to be distracted, and in Mobius around 25% of the time, when I want to hook up with friends to go sight-seeing.
I was simply pointing out that as long as there are nobbers who try to "beat the system" then there'll always be players who won't want to play in Open - regardless of how unlikely a decent C&P system makes ganking.
Surely you're not going to try and dispute that?
It has to do with the conversation that developed in the 4 hours since you were paying attention, I guess.
The only on topic posts ever in this thread were from me and about 4 other people, none of which include you. I'm genuinely surprised the mods haven't stepped in long before now.
I think this is an issue that has plagued a great many games. I don't think it is something that is easy to get right. Usually it ends up just being NPCs with thousands and thousands of hit points, which of course makes little sense within a given games internal logic and consistency. I'm sure there are some games out there that get it right, but I suspect that might be strategy games and there like. Maybe giving NPCs fully engineered ships will help, but they are still not going to fly like a human.
For my own part I am fortunate in that PvP in this game has never interested me in the slightest.
Coming from people who ignored the game advertising and design - that is rich.
Right from Day 1 it was clear PvP isn't the driving force behind the game. Let me refresh your memory......
The Wall of Information;
A quick look at the history of; and tech used to bring you this game (explains why some things are not possible).
Thanks to Roybe for for the link to the video.
From the Kickstarter; *And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*
All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)
Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."
Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)
Wikipedia; A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.
Oxford English Dictionary (Online); An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .
Way to just repeat yourself like that somehow proves your point.
Here's some pointers so you can do it the next time in Open play: drop your data on the Highway as you go. Don't fly a poorly kitted Explorer. Throw some armor on there! Maybe you could even take some lessons in evasive silent running flying before you head out. If you're really worried, get some friends to escort you to a station and run cover when you return. Heck, isn't that Iridium Wing's entire thing? Failing that, drop your data at a place not known for player traffic.
The list goes on. Fact is, you're just making excuses for lazy thinking.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Explorer ships are explorers, they are NOT combat ships. Jump range is king on them, big defenses are detrimental.
As for dropping data earlier, that assumes you are near the Colonia highway. It also prevents targeted data drops in the bubble to help unlock Permits or BGS stuff.
What you say explorers are to do does NOTHING for them and their chosen activity. You want them to adapt to Open by gimping their ships role or changing their data drop plans. Why should they when they can play in Private or Solo?
There is no reason for them to risk it. You ignore that.
As for myself, I stayed in Mobius and just buckyballed it between all the Permit unlock stations. Dropped my data without any issue or screwing up my ships performance.
I for one don't envy FDev trying to balance this game for what is, I suspect, a fairly diverse player base. So I suspect that an experienced combat player will likely find the average NPC a bit easy to beat, whereas the traders and explorers amongst us (and I include myself in the 'Brave Sir Robin' camp of combat-incompetents) probably already find them hard enough - and yet FDev strives provide a game that broadly satisfies all.
So I feel that one-player's 'balanced' is another player's 'unbalanced' - and anyone who remembers the furore over interdictions a while back will know very well what I mean here. However, I am not in disagreement with your idea*, just the premise that it will 'solve' anything, least of all in this forum.
* as long as the NPC's encountered is aligned to each player's current combat rank - I thought this was the case already tbh.
PvE = small moments of satisfaction multiplied by a large number of moments - killing thousands of NPCs
PvP = small number of large satisfaction moments - killing or even playing to a draw another real player
The stretch goal of having a large number of large satisfaction moments for PvE is unattainable simply because part of what makes the small moments satisfying is that you most often will win the battle. If you most often lost the battle, you'd have very few large-ish satisfaction moments that would be diminished even more by forum banter about how easy those particular ships should have been to kill, had you had any skills at all and had the slightest idea how to loadout and engineer your ship. You would be inundated with videos of someone killing all these ships at the same time with a shieldless fixed pulse laser sidewinder, default loadout (except for the bouncing christmas tree on the dash and the letters "git gud" as well)
Complaints on both sides got them shut down. Every time there are increases, though...the first out of the box with the complaints is the 'Oh mer gerd, they are god moded...and can't be killed...they are unfair to PVP...blah blah blah...'
Both sides annoy me on this...they both need to shut up, keep playing, and figure out how to deal with the changes.
Calling bull manure my friend; no PvPer ever complained about the 2.1 NPC's. I've been here on this forum and playing the game since well before then, and I know that for a fact it was the PvE crowd who drove those NPC's into the shallow grave, and in fact are doing everything in their power now to keep it that way.
One quick way to help build a bridge across the rift:
Do away with insurance losses and cargo losses for players killed....either PVP or PVE.
Even with some of the money making choices in the game now...it still is onerous to have to recover credits lost to this...the bigger the ship...the bigger the pain.
Calling bull manure my friend; no PvPer ever complained about the 2.1 NPC's. I've been here on this forum and playing the game since well before then, and I know that for a fact it was the PvE crowd who drove those NPC's into the shallow grave, and in fact are doing everything in their power now to keep it that way.
The only on topic posts ever in this thread were from me and about 4 other people, none of which include you. I'm genuinely surprised the mods haven't stepped in long before now.
Maybe the fact that they haven't is a reflection on your perception of the discussion?
You just posted to make the point that it might be a good idea if there were missions which pit the player against super-NPCs.
I've been saying the same thing since back on page 5 of this thread.
If you weren't so busy indulging in all these schizophrenic "Kill all the carebears/let's find some common ground" attempts to salt-mine, you might find that the sensible discussion IS going on around you. [up]
PvE and PvP have never really coexisted in any game, it's always a power struggle to get Dev time / resources.
World of Warcraft is a prime example of this now, as they are closing their PvP servers - something I never thought would happen, at one time the busiest servers were the PvP ones.
They are making the whole game opt in PvP from your main city or go to a PvP zone.
Yet for a very long time they were able to balance Dev time between all their server types.
Now, they will sideline PvP in favour of PvE.
EVE Online had to enforce no ganking rules and make cheating super AI to deal with PvP in "safe" areas.
Forcing PvP out of the core systems - banning people who break the new rules.
Star Trek Online had a great PvP crowd I enjoyed playing with, until they ignored so much they all left.
Same for Warframe, it's PvP has fallen to the wayside for more PvE content.
Mixed PvP / PvE games just don't work. A game has to be one or the other for it to be balanced properly and for mechanics that make it fun and engaging.
, here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.
