- Status
Welcome to the forums! A place where people will scream about inJustice, immorality, and any other issue that goes against/for 'fair play' in a game that is advertised as an immoral galaxy!
In a thread that is all about discussing the fact that no one has to be shot in the face if they do not want to be!
Yea it can't be done in the current system, but my comment was a reply to jockey's numbers if everyone was forced to play in open.
An immoral galaxy where "cheating" is beyond the pale! Who'd have thunk it?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - as the game stands. Some participants in these threads, however, want the freedom of choice to be removed from other players to suit their particular play-styles....
And this issue has little to do with the modes; players doing whichever action brings more merits, with no regard for if it helps their faction or not — as can be easily seen when players undermine far more than is actually useful for their faction — is an issue with the devs trying to use rewards as a bribe to get people into PowerPlay.
It's not even a new issue. Whenever devs add something highly desirable behind a certain activity, you can bet there will be a large number of players doing it just for the reward without caring for the activity itself. This in turn leads to players actively looking for every kind of possible shortcut, including exploits, even if doing that will ruin the experience for the players that actually want to play that content for the content, and not the rewards.
BTW, PvP is a breeding ground for this kind of behavior. In playing MMOs for over a decade I've seen nearly every kind of subversion of PvP for farming rewards you can think of; kill trading, groups that would lose as fast as possible to farm the consolation prizes, factions that would divide the contested area among them and punish players of their own faction that went against that agreement, etc. You add desirable rewards to PvP, players will find a way to bend the rules to get it.
Just as one player's efforts at resistance will go largely unnoticed, so too does one player's efforts in support. The CG goal couldn't be completed by just one player. That's the point. But one player would still be able to get satisfaction that they did their bit. So too, could one player get satisfaction that they were able to prevent one opposing player from contributing to the goal.
You seem to be reasoning that if one single soldier cannot win the war, then there is no point in having any battles. You might have 15,625 instances at Hutton. But if some of those 15,625 instances included players who are working against the goal, there will be an effect. They may not win the war, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worth fighting.
"Way more efficient in Private modes"
This pretty much sums it up as far as the modes affecting BGS side goes. It's really not that difficult to see. With instancing, etc the difference may end up being small. But there is a difference. Yet everything is affecting the same scoreline.
I completely understand the complaints of those who want to play Solo or PvE who reject the notion of being forced to play a different way to keep Open happy. Can they not see, that in order to be most efficient with respect to the BGS, some in Open may feel that they are being forced to play a way that they do not prefer.
Now, as I have said before, I am still currently of the opinion that the benefits of having the modes the way they are outway the problems. But at least I can understand the problems.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Frontier decided long ago that all game modes (and, with the release on the XBox One confirmed and the PS4 speculated, all platforms) will affect the same single shared galaxy state and that all players will experience it. There are side-effects, due to the min/max aspects of player response to the different modes that are perceived to be issues. If the game had been designed to be unavoidably adversarial, those perceived issues may have required something to be changed with respect to the modes.
I have not changed my opinion that the benefits of the modes, at least in part, helped the game to be funded in the first place.
Just because they feel it doesn't make it right.
As I said above - I did the Hutton CG in open - no interference from anyone.
The only time I went into solo - if I was feeling impatient - was to dock. Mostly I just sat in the queue firing off chaff and chatting with people as everyone else did.
Interestingly Code guys had to drop to solo too to repair and re-arm when one of their guys was pad blocking in their instance making the queue even worse. Of course I only found out about that later because they weren't in my instance.
Last edited:
My main complaint about the modes is it still forces players that want CG's to fully succeed out of Open during large events. Any interaction with players slows down collection of PVE trophies. These interactions increase immensely during CG's. Whether it is stopping to chat or getting your face shot off...inefficiencies are added to the event in Open.
Other than that...there is no discernible difference between the modes. Whether this has a large impact...who knows, but it does have an impact.
It's not the modes - it's the numbers. You have no idea how many are on your team versus the other teams and how many are playing at any given moment - or what the combat capabilities/carrying capacities of their ships are. It's totally pointless as "competition" before you even think about modes.
That's why Code and the other pirates had almost zero impact on the CG at Hutton - they were massively outnumbered - to think it would have been any different if everyone was in open with instancing is ludicrous.
1 Player can "get satisfaction that they were able to prevent one opposing player from contributing to the goal." at the moment, CODE did enough patting themselves on the back for the Hutton CG and they didn't actually do anything.
So why do open advocates want to force more people they may never even see in to open when they can get what they want now?
And no I'm not reasoning not to try at all.
I'm pointing out that forcing people in to open will not improve your chances of seeing more people.
My very simple little sum shows that, let alone trying to factor in everything that makes the matchmaker freak out and put you in your own private instance in open mode.
- - - Updated - - -
But if you don't want interactions, why play open mode.
Surely those in open are more concerned with having people to talk to, with getting their faces shot off, with being sociable - otherwise, why are they playing open in the first place, if not for the benefits of open?
do you actually read replies to you or just keep spouting the same drivel over and over ignoring all logic that is provided to you?
If anything in the game as a whole makes nearly all things to do with other players "worthless" a greater argument could be made against PVP than "non Open modes" but that is only if you lump the griefers and gankers with regular PVP.. kinda like your attempting to do to Solo by saying that it makes game play being less meaningful and that it makes nearly all things to do with players worthless. While all the while ignoring the huge elephant in the room that even if you had every player in Open you'd only see a few and the rest would effectively be in "solo" compared to you.
And that's primarily because PvP is based on competetive attitudes, so whatever you can do to gain "advantage", you do- whereas PvE it's not so important that rule bending (or breaking) becomes a priority.
Last edited:
I wonder about all the Open types that rail against Solo and then say they "ducked into Solo to [reason][trade, PP, work a RES alone, etc]" not really understanding that they illustrate that Solo is not the problem, players abusing the mode in Open are the problem.
How many of them would start a whole other character for each discreet mode? My guess is, not many. If Open was left "to itself," I think that in a short while it would be even more unpopulated than it is now.
We've all been trying to explain this for quite some time now. Completely agree here.
Pretty much every high-ranked hardcore raiding guild would disagree at this point, DI on Razorgore? Rolling drums on Brutallus? Stacking kitties on Nefarian V2.0?
They say that it's "useless" because they can't counter it with direct pvp, no matter how many times it's explained that PowerPlay is a political aspect of the game and politics are not war. They can't be stupid; a 10-yr-old could understand PowerPlay's mechanics. It is a self-willed blind spot cobbled together with justifications for pushing the openpvp agenda.
And I would agree- but it's more the exception than the rule.
My point was that PvE can be just as competitive too.
- Status