Thanks for your support.
I'm thinking the same, it will just be buried between the rants and personal attacks.
It's just sad as there are so many good suggestions in many threads around here.
- Status
Thanks for your support.
I'm thinking the same, it will just be buried between the rants and personal attacks.
It's just sad as there are so many good suggestions in many threads around here.
So Sandro, to get a level playing field between open and group/solo play, you are looking at limiting the contribution that the group/solo player has towards community goals in some way. Sounds like World of Warcraft Devs changing abilities in PVP because of pvp whiners shouting about unfair advantages, and in the process changing the game abilities for those who prefer PVE.
If you take this course of action you go against DB's game tenet of play the game you want the way you want equally.
You cannot level the playing field without changing the game beyond those ideas of DB.
I am retired and so regardless of whichever group I play in, I can play many more hours a day than most players who need to attend school or work. The same applies to those unemployed, or rich enough not to need to work, or the disabled who cannot work. A level playing field cannot be achieved in a game as any of those groups, of which I am one, can contribute more hours to the game than most players. As such our play time nets us more rewards and makes more contributions to goals in the game.
To balance this disparity between those at school or working, by your logic of placing limits on a class of player, the only answer would be to only allow players to play a certain amount of hours per 24hour period based on some form of national average (different for each country). Or of course you could take the EVE route and just make the game totally PVP which it seems you could be leaning towards.
If you take this course of action you go against DB's game tenet of play the game you want the way you want equally.
You cannot level the playing field without changing the game beyond those ideas of DB.
I am retired and so regardless of whichever group I play in, I can play many more hours a day than most players who need to attend school or work. The same applies to those unemployed, or rich enough not to need to work, or the disabled who cannot work. A level playing field cannot be achieved in a game as any of those groups, of which I am one, can contribute more hours to the game than most players. As such our play time nets us more rewards and makes more contributions to goals in the game.
To balance this disparity between those at school or working, by your logic of placing limits on a class of player, the only answer would be to only allow players to play a certain amount of hours per 24hour period based on some form of national average (different for each country). Or of course you could take the EVE route and just make the game totally PVP which it seems you could be leaning towards.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Taking on board what Sandro has posted, it would seem that there may be some concerns within Frontier that Community Goals are not meeting with their expectations in some way. As Frontier hold all of the statistics and know who contributed what and in which mode, only they know how much of an effect players in each game mode have had on the latest CG. I would expect that a Community Goal has the desired aim of bringing the community together - at the moment aspects of the CG seem to be driving a wedge between portions of the game's community.
For players to remain engaged with the concept of CGs, each player needs to feel that they are on a level playing field (advantaged / disadvantaged only by their skills and ship - not by which game mode they play in).
This is undoubtedly going to be a difficult balancing act to pull off - and will probably end up being a compromise of some kind. The perfect compromise is one that everyone is content with - realistically, a workable compromise is one that both pleases and displeases affected individuals in equal measure.
Waiting with bated breath to see what Sandro proposes....
For players to remain engaged with the concept of CGs, each player needs to feel that they are on a level playing field (advantaged / disadvantaged only by their skills and ship - not by which game mode they play in).
This is undoubtedly going to be a difficult balancing act to pull off - and will probably end up being a compromise of some kind. The perfect compromise is one that everyone is content with - realistically, a workable compromise is one that both pleases and displeases affected individuals in equal measure.
Waiting with bated breath to see what Sandro proposes....
Last edited:
+ rep for this, I feel exactly the same way.
Neither adding additional rewards or outright restricting community goals to open will actually get me to play in open. If anything it will just lock me out of another aspect of the game and much like the case with Wings, do nothing to improve my play experience or make me more inclined stick with this game in the long term.
I can understand that. "Not Green Shoot It" crowd can get (a little) annoying, even for other PvPers, but since FD is busy making changes to the law system, I am sure such groups will eventually have to choose to either behave a little less like murderers or life a life of a true pirate on some fringe. There was this one system in Premium Beta, I think it may have been bugged, but it can be a good example - if you wen't there, you were interdicted over and over and over again - people were trying to see just how long they can survive. That's what a high security system should be like for a hardened criminal. Not impossible to breach - but really really hard.
Brought a wing? Well, then the police escalate with wings of their own. And so on. As I understand it, all of that is in the works.
By the way, the nature of the instance can change too, if you play Open. Players have been known to crash into other people's PvE instances. So it is less a classic instance system as it is a mechanism to keep the dogfights fun.
Very much this ^^^ I know among by own gaming set that ED attracted them precisely BECAUSE it was advertised as a game you could play your own way via the modes. A game where you weren't having YOUR enjoyment compromised by always having to be the prey for another player. I bought into the game because I wanted to recreate the 'me v the galaxy' game of the original, not me v the galaxy plus every player who gets his lols from knowingly attacking another player's fun. If ED starts slipping on the fairness to all modes side of things then I'll just go play more Naval Action (which btw is pure PvP so don't even start on the 'scared of PVP' mantra).
This is the primary reason I avoid open, it has more warp than Star Trek! If FD offered me a monthly cash bribe to play in open, I'd still be playing in group.
They can do more than that. Goals themselves can be redesigned to get rid of grinding as the means to goal progression. Grinding is where solo players have the advantage. Remove that, and introduce something more complex that is equally challenging for both solo and Open and does not give any one mode an unfair advantage, and you keep everyone happy. Open players because they can play Open without feeling sub-par, and solo players because they get more interesting stuff to do ingame and are still contributing to goals.
Last edited:
".... play the game you want the way you want equally....."
.
There is OBVIOUSLY a balance issue with competitive community goals and Open/Solo........I am sure you can see that.
.
I hear you saying you don't want your contributions diluted, you want to have "the same game" as everyone else and to count as much as everyone else........to be "equal".....So, I have a question........
.
If you will not accept lower contribution counts from Solo play.....why don't we demand that Solo play NPCs be sent to "Lunatic Levels" to match what Open players are getting? You know, to keep things "Equal"......?
What?! Where are you getting this nonsense from. Stop making stuff up. A) as regards grinding there is no diff between Solo and less occupied Open. B) The playing field is still level, you too have the choice to play in whatever mode you want for whatever reason you want.
The idea of ensuring that there are always opposite goals that people can work against sounds great, but does not appeal to the idea of going out and stopping people completing the opposing goal. So while PvE players applaud it, there is no satisfaction for PvP intent.
Still being ignored is that fact that changes that disadvantage Solo will affect most those who for one reason or other cannot do solo. That may be those with low hardware specs, no joystick, or just simply with little skill and little time to develop the skill needed to not be nothing more than cannon fodder.
One group of people everyone is desperate to ignore is those who are disabled (if that's still the correct definition) who play Elite and do not have the coordination to handle PvP content. Nerf Solo in some way would then disadvantage an already disadvantaged group of people who I know are dedicated to this game.
Still being ignored is that fact that changes that disadvantage Solo will affect most those who for one reason or other cannot do solo. That may be those with low hardware specs, no joystick, or just simply with little skill and little time to develop the skill needed to not be nothing more than cannon fodder.
One group of people everyone is desperate to ignore is those who are disabled (if that's still the correct definition) who play Elite and do not have the coordination to handle PvP content. Nerf Solo in some way would then disadvantage an already disadvantaged group of people who I know are dedicated to this game.
I like the community goals too and I cannot understand lowering the rewards for solo players. Why? Because it is the cheapest and easiest non-solution possible and because it again says, that PvP elitists are really something more. They are not. I despise most of them, because what they want most is to kill people who do not want to engage in PvP - aka pwning n00bs. And this would be just a lure to make their dreams possible. It is not about risk, it is about being a toy of someone who is there only to increase his ego.
Much more elegant solution is to actually put some work into the development! Reflect the situation on open to solo, via NPCs (and vice versa!) or to add a new community goal targeted against the first one.
I started as an open player only. I switched the day when I was killed three times in one hour. It was just pretty boring to pay for the insurance, undock and die again, and again. Then I enjoyed helping with the community goal on solo.
If a cheap way of "balancing" (or rather dis-balancing) is introduced, then I will quit. I bought the game knowing that there are two choices, open and solo (group). Having one of the options disabled or discriminated would be evil and I would take it as dishonesty and betrayal from developers (I have no respect for liars). Make the game better, not worse!
Do not NERF, but IMPROVE!
This is spot on based on the current game mechanics and this is how we did it in Jumpgate ( all 3 factions raced to get their quest done 1st ).
What would need to be forced is that only one mission can be accepted.
i have to say the earlier discussion of custard wastage is seriously disturbing and if FD commit to such non-eating related custard activities i will be uninstalling ED faster than you can say spotted
Which would eliminate another possiblity for the roleplayers, doing some kind of "double-agent" activity that was described by DB, but never found its way into the game mechanics.
I'm inclined to wonder if you've ever actually entered a high intensity conflict zone in Solo mode since the various AI improvements have been made? All it takes is one wing of fresh hostile NPCs jumping in, with you being the closest attackable thing to them, and suddenly you're being focused by half a dozen ships. What's worse is you can often find yourself with no backup, whatsoever, as the friendly NPCs can just all focus a Viper and fly off chasing that while you get shot to bits. No wing to back you up, and certainly no swarm of friendly players to back you up.
Maybe they could make it so that PvP kills contribute more to the goals than PvE kills? Though honestly, I'm not really understanding the whole community goals is unfair because of Solo/Private Group play argument? If anything it's the only thing that kept it even slightly balanced during the Lugh events, as if it were only based on Open contributions, it would have been almost entirely dominated by the hordes of organized CSG and Empire "clans". So how would it be fair as a Federation player, if I were forced to play in Open if I wanted to contribute, only to not actually be able to because no such "clans" exist for the Federation at the moment, meaning I'd just get blown up until I decided to quit and go do something else?
That would be pointless and you know it but how about a different suggestion to solve the problem. Make two different types of community goals in different systems. They would both have equal amounts of contribution from all players in them. They would also both have equal amounts of trading/combat etc. However they would both be limited to one group of player. Open group play only, would be one of the goals, PVP centric. Solo/Group play with a flag preventing player versus player combat in the other, PVE centric.
With such a system each player could choose which type of community goal play they wanted to partake in, and could even swap and change groups and contribute as much as they wished to whichever group, or both, as they wanted.
They should just stop solo players taking part in "Community" goals............It is an oxymoron to start with......Solo......Community.........eh?...
.
I imagine the towns folk, gathering together to build a new barn....some chop trees and wood, others shape the wood, others carry and place the wood, others lift and nail it in to place, others prepare food for the workers, etc etc.......
.
And as the "Community" work together, laughing, joking, having fun............a "plank" appears out of nowhere.....and then another one......and another one.......the people in the community look with wonder, then shrug and carry on............the solo player, is not seen, not known and is most certainly not part of the "community"..........the whole idea of solo players who seem to moan and groan about wanting to be left alone by other players, yet seeming to demand the right to interfere with Open play and "Community" goals.........cake and eat it springs to mind..........
.
As a Solo player, I am glad FD are looking in to this........
.
I imagine the towns folk, gathering together to build a new barn....some chop trees and wood, others shape the wood, others carry and place the wood, others lift and nail it in to place, others prepare food for the workers, etc etc.......
.
And as the "Community" work together, laughing, joking, having fun............a "plank" appears out of nowhere.....and then another one......and another one.......the people in the community look with wonder, then shrug and carry on............the solo player, is not seen, not known and is most certainly not part of the "community"..........the whole idea of solo players who seem to moan and groan about wanting to be left alone by other players, yet seeming to demand the right to interfere with Open play and "Community" goals.........cake and eat it springs to mind..........
.
As a Solo player, I am glad FD are looking in to this........
Jesus, we've been over this a dozen times.
We're talking about COMMUNITY GOALS. Do you suffer from some kind of intermittent amnesia and forget what was just said? Or do you really just don't pay attention and argue for the sake of arguing. COMMUNITY GOALS. Not "less occupid Open".
Unless of course my reason is to score to top 5%, in which case I have to go solo because Open is not efficient enough. Or if I want to see my opposing goal win, because again, Open is not efficient enough.
Look, if you want to discuss ways to make solo/group/open fair and even, I'm all for it. But if you're going to keep bringing the same old arguments up that have both been shot down and have nothing to do with our discussion, you're going to end up talking to yourself.
I only play in Solo.......and yes have been in HiIntensity, around Lugh last weekend as I wanted to see a Cap ship.......was in a Vulture, never got more than one ring removed on shields..........
- Status