Well I certainly found it a bit worrying that the discussions seemed hidden deep inside this long running thread. Perhaps the mods should not have moved it and the debate in question be moved to somewhere more obvious and with a more appropriate title so that more people are aware of the debate.
- Status
Well I certainly found it a bit worrying that the discussions seemed hidden deep inside this long running thread. Perhaps the mods should not have moved it and the debate in question be moved to somewhere more obvious and with a more appropriate title so that more people are aware of the debate.
Yeah lets not worry about any of the early stuff, all that kickstarter rubbish, those people who paid to make the game, screw them! what do they matter its all history & a little inconvenient too, its not like they paid for the game to be made is it?, oh yeah, they did, without them there would be nothing to discuss.
Buy now change later, that will work, its ED not Argos.
If you want more people in open post in the x box threads how they should all be in your "open" here, you will get a lot more "targets"
Hello Commander Demiga!
This is something that I'm considering.
There won't be any changes in the immediate future (our time is fairly booked up right now), but on face value it certainly seems plausible and maybe reasonable to me. I'll need to chew it over some more, obviously. I *believe* a change like this would be possible though (again, I'd have to verify that with team server).
Comments on this would be welcome.
Oh, but obviously, Commander Demiga, let's try and keep the temperature at a reasonable level. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as they do so politely.
Hi Sandro,
If you are considering comments from the community about this... I would like to say that although I broadly agree with the gist of Demiga's OP (play in Open = more impact on the CGs), I don't think it fully addresses what I think is the problem of CGs being accessible in Solo mode.
I don't think the suggestion goes far enough to limit the disruption Solo players can cause to the emergent gameplay which I think/hope CGs are actually meant to encourage.
For example, the Lugh goals to run weapons; Play in Solo and you increase your chances of avoiding any player-driven blockades to 100%. (I accept that instancing exists, so you might not see anyone anyway, but at least there's still a chance in Open).
It's been mentioned elsewhere about how the CGs are essentially competitions for access to resources, be that access to Combat zones to hunt for redeemable Bonds, or access to trade routes to bring in weapons. The player-driven aspect is to deny the opposition access to the resources: If the opposition can just vanish into a pristine instance just for them to access resources unhindered, they've just rendered the entire emergent aspect meaningless.
At least supply of goods at stations is shared across modes, so there's one resource which can be denied to a certain degree, but that alone is just not good enough IMO.
Also, even if the contributions were reduced for Solo play, what's to stop a group of organised players all deciding together to individually go into Solo to partake in trade-CGs? It would be rational for them to trade-off the reduced contributions from Solo, for avoiding the losses they might've suffered at the hands of opposing player pirates trying to get them in Open.
I think that the potential for a lot of really fun & spontaneous player-driven action is just evaporating because of the solo option when it comes to CGs.
Last edited:
Well, you could then just go into solo.
None of you seem to get it. If you don't want to play with us - we don't care. Why should we? Aside from community goals, it really doesn't matter whether you're in solo or open. But if you play in open, players can blockade you. Saying "oh, I can just go into solo" is the same as saying "I'll play a different game and blah blah blah". As soon as you exit Open, be it via going solo, OCD-ing with the block list or using an IP blocker, you cease to participate in the game as far as we're concerned.
As for community goals, as has been said, these are being looked at.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
If you want to nitpick, community goals were never mentioned during Kickstarter. So basically it's a new feature and has nothing to do with the pledge.
And yeah, things change. Roll with it.
That's different. Trading, while it might be considered a form of competition, happens in the entire inhabited part of the galaxy. There are hundreds of thousands of viable routes, and it all changes anyway, including on its own. So even if you have people posting profitable routes that inevitably get depleted by an influx of players, trying to chase every other trader off your route would not be effective - both because the route itself is subject to change and because you're not generating profits if you're busy chasing people off all the time.
Exploration is again, vast. Player competition, despite some words from the devs that it would be dangerous (something along the lines of making players compete and even steal each other's data), player competition is simply drowned in the sea of possible targets. I expect with Level 2 and 3 scans becoming available, even more so.
Community goals are focused around a very small area - usually a single system. And when there competing community goals, which are by their very nature and intent designed to pit player groups against one another, then going solo makes it far more efficient than playing in open, which in turn affects both the ranking on the goals, as well as progression. Thus when competing community goals are involved, something needs to be done to even out the field, so that all players can enjoy them by playing the mode they prefer. Right now Open players feel they have to go solo to be competitive.
Yet you seem to care about what we do and what we get, as you keep going on how we have it better (without any real proof, just subjective non-sense)
You can only blockade someone, IF THEY LET YOU - that is the bit you want to ignore, it requires the other people to want to be blockaded for their own fun and challenge, it has nothing to do with what YOU want, it is what THEY want, for as long as THEY want it.
Wow, talk about grasping on tight - what if they "look" and decide the current system is the most fair?
I'd not put all your hope in to 1 comment made by someone who does not get final say over it.
And PvPers get regularly ignored in PvE focused games - ready to Roll with it, if it happens?
What other thread?
it weas very clear he was talking about open play vs solo.
and yeah it is very disheartening to see a lead designer already decide to nerf solo mode.
If you go back a couple of pages to the comments - there was a new sub title, that was the title of the thread that was merged.
Apparently lead designer agrees that there is stuff to be looked at.
Well, that's your problem. You seem to think PvP is all about forcing people to do what they don't want to do. We don't. PvP is about having fun. Both in establishing a blockade and in running. If someone doesn't want to play, well, not much we can do about it, is there. Even if there was no solo and no way to block people and you couldn't just combat log, they could simply not play the game.
I'd say the lead designer has some say in it.
Sure. I can always find something else to play if they nuke Open. It would be a shame, just like it was with SWG when SOE nuked it, but such things happen. Of course, given that they would need to redesign the whole base Open game to do that, and that the community uproar would make the offline mode incident look positively docile by comparison, I kinda doubt that will be the course they take.
Last edited:
That's not quite true. If someone did such a thing, went to Solo to achieve whatever they wanted to do - and went back into Open to have a bit of fun with other players - a percentage of them would undoubtedly scream "Combat logging/Solo mode cheater!" and bay for his blood and blow them up out of sheer spite. Without any proof at all, merely a presumption - as you cannot prove in any way that that player has ever played in Solo - unless you constantly OCD monitor him on your friends list, or he happily tells you. Same thing goes for all the precious Open Only Purists - you can't tell if any of them have always kept the faith, or been sneaky Solo Heretics at some point.
He didn't say what that stuff is though - and there was a suggestion of just removing the ability to tell who is a human and who is an NPC in the CG combat areas (an idea I would support)
Big leap though from "some" to "final" and things change along the way, for example;
In Star Trek Online, we asked for big open sector space so we didn't keep having loading screens and area changes for flying in a line for more than 30 seconds, the designers said it could not be done - they stuck with this for almost 5 years... then, a few weeks back, a new EP took over, first thing on the list, big open sector space in the next season update, so the Devs said it cannot be done for years - then the new leader said it can and will be done this year.
So as much as I respect the guy for saying he will look in to it, I'll believe change will happen - WHEN it happens, not before.
Sure. I can always find something else to play if they nuke Open. It would be a shame, just like it was with SWG when SOE nuked it, but such things happen. Of course, given that they would need to redesign the whole base Open game to do that, and that the community uproar would make the offline mode incident look positively docile by comparison, I kinda doubt that will be the course they take.
And "nuke open" ? what are you on about?
All the game modes have the same rewards, nothing will get nuked or removed. All any of us want is fair play - at the moment, it is fair, as we all have the same choices and the same rewards, any limits we encounter, are there because we put them there, not FD
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
That is the reasoning people used for not having an "Ironman" group and harping on at FD to create an "Ironman" mode... shame no one can agree on what makes a mode "Ironman"
Last edited:
oh ok well didnt see that one
Took me some time to get used to that, I still miss the odd sub title from time to time and wonder what the flow of the conversation changed suddenly.
It doesn't really stand out to me, though that may be the theme I'm using for the forums.
Which is why the game needs to be designed in such a way that we don't have to always wonder.
Ah, right there - that right there, is the main cause of problems in this game and many many others;
People spend far too much time being concerned over what others have, what others earn, what others are doing. The minute you start comparing what you have to others is when the misery starts.
If you just get on with your own game and leave others alone to get on with theirs - it becomes a much better game and you have far less stress and worry.
But the game exists, and has been released with the design philosophy that you have to wonder - as there is absolutely no metric to monitor mode useage apart from FD's internal systems. Removing the freedom of choice to play in whichever mode someone desires at any given time, renders the whole design philosophy irrelevant - it essentially is a demand for a whole new game mode. One mode to rule them all, if you will.
Old idea. Last time it was floated most players were against it. Not that it would do anything for the game. It would only aggravate the situation since it would be easier to doubt the result of the community goals, which would drive people off them. And it would make it even easier for noob hunters to do their thing since it's quite easy to spot a player ship even without radar. They fly differently from NPCs. New players wouldn't even be able to see them coming.
Well, he also said they're booked right now, so I'm not holding my breath in anticipation either. But, they will look into it, and that's good enough for me right now. Not much more we could ask for.
If they mess up the PvP portion of the game, they nuke Open. Simple as that.
What is your opinion on the Xbox release? From what I could gather they will also be sharing these goals, but will not be sharing the same player instance, which means zero direct interaction between PC/Mac and console gamers and yet they will also influence the galaxy.
I can empathise with both groups and understand how fun and competitive playing with an organised player driven group can be, yet also see it from the view point of perhaps the more introverted group whose play is just as valid who find this aspect poison and not fun whatsoever and will feel aggrieved that they've been "punished" for choosing a playstyle they enjoy and when I listened to the recent Lave radio broadcast where they interviewed basically proponents of what you're saying and coming up with a thousand members (and they, like others have tried to allude that they're the future...), which is in rough terms outnumbered 6 to 1 by members in the PVE Mobius group (6089 at time of writing) I think Frontier need to be careful when adjusting these areas to benefit one group over another.
Perhaps with upcoming updates there could be more room to compromise, reading through these comments I see major opposing views and right now compromise maybe hard to come by, although I do hope that will be the case someday.
Ah, right there - that right there, is the main cause of problems in this game and many many others;
People spend far too much time being concerned over what others have, what others earn, what others are doing. The minute you start comparing what you have to others is when the misery starts.
If you just get on with your own game and leave others alone to get on with theirs - it becomes a much better game and you have far less stress and worry.
Take that advice to heart if they decide to adjust the influence solo/group players have on community goals.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I wouldn't call it a philosophy, as if imbalance in community goal scoring was something they did deliberately. I would sooner say that CGs being a new feature, it didn't mesh perfectly with the existing design of the game. They won't change the base design of the game of course, but they can change the way this new feature works.
- Status