Actually, you can win. CSG won in Lugh for example. The civil war effects whether your chosen faction spreads. Nothing to do with "e-peen" as you so eloquently say, but rather literally how the game works. If we were still back in beta or gamma and the game was about your own personal money grind then I would agree, but the game has grown to include factional warfare with clear winners and losers.
- Status
Actually, you can win. CSG won in Lugh for example. The civil war effects whether your chosen faction spreads. Nothing to do with "e-peen" as you so eloquently say, but rather literally how the game works. If we were still back in beta or gamma and the game was about your own personal money grind then I would agree, but the game has grown to include factional warfare with clear winners and losers.
Its just a little odd to me that for what is called a "community" goal, that you do not have to interact with that community to be rewarded. That's just my 2 credits on that discussion.
I might have an extremely unpopular opinion, but I think the whole mode system is flawed. It fractures the community, can be somewhat abused, and, as a side effect, causes mass drama as well. It just creates more worry than good.
Private and solo are worried about losing, and Open are worried that the population could die off. With no compromise in sight, and I am especially in no position to propose one, it is quite the conundrum.
Yet another unpopular, and utterly impossible opinion, is that I think that there should be only one mode, or at least one mode that contribute to the overall community. The system currently just feels unfair to each party, no matter where you stand.
I might have an extremely unpopular opinion, but I think the whole mode system is flawed. It fractures the community, can be somewhat abused, and, as a side effect, causes mass drama as well. It just creates more worry than good.
Private and solo are worried about losing, and Open are worried that the population could die off. With no compromise in sight, and I am especially in no position to propose one, it is quite the conundrum.
Yet another unpopular, and utterly impossible opinion, is that I think that there should be only one mode, or at least one mode that contribute to the overall community. The system currently just feels unfair to each party, no matter where you stand.
Well said Joe. That should put this little debate to bed.
This whole debate seems to revolve around one set of players. The players that like to randomly kill people for no reason other than their own jollies. The sooner these people get fed up and leave the game altogether the better it will be for good honest players and yes I include pirates in the good honest players because a proper pirate plays to make money not kill innocents.
This is an excerpt from a piece I wrote on the Vox Populi thread, dealing with the issue of Open, Private Group, and Solo in the War in Lugh.
"This shortcoming (Note: the lack of blockade/defensive goals) became even more of an issue when we realized that the only way for us to win this was to go to private modes and grind out the necessary numbers. This occurred the second day of the event. 90% of our base was working 'undercover'. This was voluntary, so we did have an external presence, and many public players supporting us, remained in Open. However, the vast majority of our dedicated players were in the Roybe Private group or one of the Mercs of Mikunn private groups. A large number just ground out the numbers in Private also.
I have posted the problem in the forums as this was not the way we desired to play the game, but the demands of winning really forced us into these modes.
I am not a fan of the splintered game play modes of this game. I feel they place the community at odds with each other in ways that are not healthy. I understand the need to protect people from themselves and others. One of the problems, which is probably a false equivalency, is that for everyone to feel they are sharing in the galaxy they must receive an equal input into the galaxy. I am in disagreement with this idea. However, I am not going to presume to be able to fix this either. My goal isn't to create a movement to move people into one mode over the other, but come up with some way for all to contribute with equivalency from all game modes."
Equality means everyone has a one to one result. Equivalency means that there are modifications to equalize the outcomes. In the War on Lugh, it was much more efficient to grind out any of the goals in Private or Solo, than in Open. Between issues of lag and PC interference, the rates could be as high as double or triple the amounts received. Under the current idea of equality, there is no problem with this, except that it wasn't the way I, and many others desired to play. My personal desire couldn't even be considered, in fairness to those that worked hard to get Lugh to the point of the war. If many of our players had stayed in Open, we would have lost. This is a problem that will have to be worked out. We are seeing FDev attempting some requirements for equivalency in areas that have to deal with real world products (i.e. it was required that Triple Elite had to be done in Open, as well as the Titan Black)
I'm not sure there is a way to fix this, many have suggested things, but it always breaks down to equality vs. equivalence. People playing in the private modes feel penalized, that their efforts would somehow be diminished. My only problem with this whole situation, and it is a problem in any community goal, is that there is no reason at all to play these in open and that it actually works to everyone's benefit to do them in private mode.
So, this brings me to the question you all can fight over. Equivalency or equality? If equivalency, how can you keep the majority happy. If equality, how do you propose to make Open relevant to a community goal outcome.
"This shortcoming (Note: the lack of blockade/defensive goals) became even more of an issue when we realized that the only way for us to win this was to go to private modes and grind out the necessary numbers. This occurred the second day of the event. 90% of our base was working 'undercover'. This was voluntary, so we did have an external presence, and many public players supporting us, remained in Open. However, the vast majority of our dedicated players were in the Roybe Private group or one of the Mercs of Mikunn private groups. A large number just ground out the numbers in Private also.
I have posted the problem in the forums as this was not the way we desired to play the game, but the demands of winning really forced us into these modes.
I am not a fan of the splintered game play modes of this game. I feel they place the community at odds with each other in ways that are not healthy. I understand the need to protect people from themselves and others. One of the problems, which is probably a false equivalency, is that for everyone to feel they are sharing in the galaxy they must receive an equal input into the galaxy. I am in disagreement with this idea. However, I am not going to presume to be able to fix this either. My goal isn't to create a movement to move people into one mode over the other, but come up with some way for all to contribute with equivalency from all game modes."
Equality means everyone has a one to one result. Equivalency means that there are modifications to equalize the outcomes. In the War on Lugh, it was much more efficient to grind out any of the goals in Private or Solo, than in Open. Between issues of lag and PC interference, the rates could be as high as double or triple the amounts received. Under the current idea of equality, there is no problem with this, except that it wasn't the way I, and many others desired to play. My personal desire couldn't even be considered, in fairness to those that worked hard to get Lugh to the point of the war. If many of our players had stayed in Open, we would have lost. This is a problem that will have to be worked out. We are seeing FDev attempting some requirements for equivalency in areas that have to deal with real world products (i.e. it was required that Triple Elite had to be done in Open, as well as the Titan Black)
I'm not sure there is a way to fix this, many have suggested things, but it always breaks down to equality vs. equivalence. People playing in the private modes feel penalized, that their efforts would somehow be diminished. My only problem with this whole situation, and it is a problem in any community goal, is that there is no reason at all to play these in open and that it actually works to everyone's benefit to do them in private mode.
So, this brings me to the question you all can fight over. Equivalency or equality? If equivalency, how can you keep the majority happy. If equality, how do you propose to make Open relevant to a community goal outcome.
See this here I disagree with also. How are like minded people, playing in their own prospective groups, or solo, fracturing the game? The fact is their not! there just happily doing there own thing. Just because players choose not to be your targets, does not make them any less important to the game than some one that does openly choose to be a target in open. A player that chooses to be there, adds to open content in a much better way. This is what Frontier thinks too. It's there chosen design. They didn't blunder they actually got it right.
Last edited:
Does make you wonder. : /
Don't you dare make a proposition like that !
How do you want the PvP crowd to accept such a thing, when they know a lot of people is going to leave Open for PvE ?
Here is the thread anyway... https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=131730
My target? Firstly, I hunt the people who would kill you, and second, I have yet to be the target of another player, but that is beside the point. Maybe eventually a players eyes will gaze upon my hull with ill intent, but I accept that fate, I am no stranger to loss, and I don't fear it either. People speak like going into open is like entering a terrible nightmare where all is lost, and you will die. Its silly to me, but I don't really like to say that for fear of being crucified as a MLG PvPbro, or whatever.
It does fracture the games population, people in solo and private do not interact with people in open. Those worlds are separate, yet they contribute to the same goals. Do you think that is fair to the people in Open who work hard to prevent a community goal from passing? That's exciting, emergent, and player driven gameplay, that can be completely bypassed and has no meaning... That's truly sad, as many games try to have that, and fail so badly, but this game could have it, but its crippled by its fractured playerbase.
But as I say, I am just a weird random here, with not much say in any of this.
Last edited:
Well now, we do have a difference of opinion here. I for one support mode switching because it is an equalizing factor, not something that splinters the player base. It unites the player base, and allow all of us to enjoy the game as we like. Yes the CG's need a bit of balancing, I agree to this whole heatedly. But to imply all players would be better off forced into a single mode, amounts to simple nonsense to me. I say this with all due respect. Having this choice simply means we wont all be in open, which I'm sure is exactly how FD envisioned it.
What ever motives anyone to dream up, as to why I play solo. It's simple. It's my choice, and FD supports this 100%. The players in solo and open choose to be there. Are you suggesting they shouldn't have that choice? Are you suggesting their support at the kick starter meant any less than yours, assuming you were here at the beginning? Are you suggesting that they would all be better off, to have there choices taken away, and be forced without their consent into open?
Now I'm an ole PVP'er my self. I've probably been PVP'ing before you were born, I'm 65. I'm tired of it. Been there, done that, "AN AWFULLY LOT". Let's just agree to disagree here, respectfully.
PS The people in solo & group don't interact with the people in open because they choose not to. It's actually just that simple.
Last edited:
Let's talk about a fractured community shall we?
First of all, let's look at Solo. In Solo, players play their own game on their own. They set their own goals and agendas. They don't want to interact with others for any number of reasons, but they all share the same basic desire: to play Elite, on their own. That's a group of players who more or less share the same experience of Elite, albeit separately.
Then we have Group. I think it's safe to say that the majority of Group play probably consists of friends who, essentially, want to play Solo together. They want to play with each other but don't want to play with other players who they don't know. Then we get groups like Mobius who offer a "thematic server" type experience for like-minded players. There might be a group dedicated to pure RP or one for pure PvP, or whatever. But the key here is that they are for like-minded players.
And now let's look at Open. In Open we get players who want to Role-Play within a larger group of players. Some of those want to include PvP, some might not. We get players who just want to chat with other players (as another player, not a character). We get some players who don't want to interact with other players but like the sense of a living, dynamic galaxy which Open brings - they are aware that there is a chance of PvP and that's fine, it's all part of the unpredictable dynamics. We also get some player who want to play Elite as a PvP arena of sorts. Some of these want to include RP, some of them don't.
And with the way the P2P instancing works any of these players could be placed with any of the other players. the engine looks at various methods of chosing who is placed with who, but it doesn't take their preferred play style into account (because it can't possibly know). This is the very definition of fractured. Open creates a fractured community, not the three modes. You see plenty of posts defending Open to Soloers saying that once you move a few systems over you never see a soul. You read many posts about how players in Open jump into a system with a bunch of other players and not one of them respond to comms. Some players get unwelcome PvP, some only meet friendly awesome people. Etc. etc. It would seem that Open is a completely different experience for many different players.
I believe that Group holds the solution. I think there should be a way to register groups that are "permanent" (among other things) and they can be aimed at all of these different types of player. Have a pure PvP group, have a pure PvE group, have an RP group, have a group of RP Pvp, etc.. Advertise them, list them in the menu page. That way everyone gets the game everyone wants. Play your way.
Last edited:
Very Nice! +1
Then, of course, players like me see what you described as a problem as a great feature instead. It means that others can't force their own gameplay on me, it means that I'm free to choose to not be someone's else content and don't even have to sacrifice my access to the game in order to achieve that. I don't want players to ever be able to blockade a system against other players, simply because I want to be able to always choose how and when I interact with other players.
Or, to put it in a different way, I don't play non-consensual PvP. Not now, not ever. I won't even put up with the chance of that happening, if the game is designed to force me to become someone's else content from time to time, I would rather leave it now than wait for it to happen.
Emergent gameplay? As long as it's based on denial — as in, player blockades denying access to part of the setting to everyone else, player-caused setbacks denying progression to other players, and so on — then I see it as a pure negative aspect of the game, something that only serves to remove any possible fun or enjoyment that the game could have, that pushes me away without any redeeming quality. The only kind of emergent gameplay I value is that based on spontaneously helping each other, cooperating.
But then, of course, in the Bartle Test I score 0% Killer. I see no point, at all, in trying to impose one's will unto other players, I can't begin to understand how this can ever be enjoyable either for the winner or the loser.
Now, see, I do like the idea of the blockades and similar dynamic gameplay (the idea of it, I worry that the reality is probably a let down) but like you, I'm not particularly interested in taking part in it. To quote someone else on the forum (I just don't remember who or where) - I'm not interested in being someone else's content.
Isn't it great that we can have both!
Last edited:
+1 - I really do like this idea.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
1 thing I will say, which borders on agreement with you (but not for the same reasons you have) I too hate the name community goal. IMO it is gamey and completely takes away from the supposed "your life as a spaceman, you vs the universe" vibe which the rest of the game is geared towards.
Community goal just stinks of "videogame challenge"
Take Lugh for instance, there are so many cool ways this story could have been told from within galnet, keeping it completely within the game universe.... and it would have been Federation missions and..... CSG was it??? (I fought exclusively for them and I cant remember!) missions. There was never any need to even mention the "community". I find the whole thing jarring, after all, in the game we are ALL part of the community, us and NPCs alike, it is a small subset of players who insist on treating hollow boxes differently to the filled in ones but from an ingame RP perspective there is no difference aside from the hollow ones are a privileged group of pilots with extra perks who you mess with at your peril.
(NOTE... I am not moaning about the "goals" themselves, I think they are great but just the packaging of them). Take out the community from the name and then we are just back inside the elite universe again, and all of a sudden it all fits in properly, and there is no argument against mode switching (aside the same ones for the rest of the game) and it matters not what mode we play in, it is just running as the game was always advertised.
Last edited:
Yeah, it is a poor choice of name.
Last edited:
Agreed. I don't know if a more thematic/immersive approach would solve the main contention (illustrated by the blockade issue) but it would make it feel more accessible to more players. I haven't taken part in any community goal yet because of exactly that - they feel like an artificial competition shoehorned into the game and I'm not a competitive player so it's clearly not aimed at me (is how I feel).
Last edited:
I really have a hard time buying the argument that different modes "splinter" the community. Anytime you get surprise PvP involved in a game, the community already going to divide against itself. You can justify the action all you want with game mechanics that make sense, but the hostility that people have against both groups ("Carebears" vs "Phychos") already causes the rift in and of itself.
I think it's the lesser of two evils to just let the two groups play apart.
I think it's the lesser of two evils to just let the two groups play apart.
- Status