- Status
What do people think about the idea of Groups being overhauled, so that the game parameters and rules can be customised within a particular group, i.e. dead means dead, loadout limits, no fire zone ranges, wear and tear costs, report crimes on/off, police response time, malfunction probabilities, etc. It would be a bit like being able to mod the game (within dev-approved limits), and would allow people to come up with all kinds of rule sets to sort their particular kinks.
Love the idea.
Add to that the possibility of having more than one owner in a group, and being able to transfer ownership; and the possibility of making the group an open one, where players can add themselves without needing approval (though the owners should still be able to ban players that break the group's rules); plus one of the options being a way to either turn off PvP or else to auto-ban players that kill another player out of a combat zone (or kills a player that isn't designated as an enemy in a combat zone); and it would be really great for a good number of players.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The ability to change rules in private groups was talked about - sadly it has come to nothing so far.
Last edited:
The crux of the matter is this - the way the modes are configured (I also play open only) doesn't make sense.
What I would love is a "hardcore" mode with a separate save and separate date (exploration and trade data, too), which has perhaps tweaked rewards (and tweaked risks) and no mode switching. Perhaps with PvP losses and rewards being both greater (no insurance for modules - but chance of them being salvageable; would really add risk and reward to PvP).
Basically, a more PvP centric and MMO-like mode for Elite which stands separate from the vanilla game. It would really be a hit with many people. Since the prevailing philosophy of the design team is apparently "let's please everyone", why not?
Last edited:
You know I want you to get that special mode too. Actually I'm just tired of all the complaining, (I could say whining but I'm going to try to be polite here).
I say give-em the damn mode if possible. But I do have just a couple of conditions I would like attached to it. If you can't bring yourselves to leave the original modes alone, with it's established features. If all the players you expect to move forward to this new mode, don't Magically show up there, as you're so certain many of them will. Then if you start complaining about the rest of the modes, and how they need to be destroyed to fuel new players in your special new mode, "The Special mode Made just for players like you". Then your group of like minded individuals should have your new mode destroyed, and be literally forced back into the original modes to continue playing like the game was intended.
I could get on board with that. Oh yea one last thing, PVE'ers get there, "PVE Open mode as well".
I'll tell you why not: Day 3, the forum would be flooded with innumerable "FD has to do something to compel players to play the new Hardcore mode because I can't find anyone to shoot." threads.
After reading this forum for months, the one thing I'm certain of is that a great many self-described open players all share the same delusional belief that if only FD were to do something different, then the rest of the player base would abandon group and solo to join them in open. Only a handful have demonstrated the wherewithal to figure out that players are in group or solo because they enjoy it.
Nicely put. +1
Personally, I don't want more people in Open. I do not believe there are as many people that want a 'target rich environment' as people think there are. I want people in Open that want to play in Open and understand that bad things happen. If players are not willing for bad things to happen, then they need to play in one of the other modes. It would also get this thread to stop growing.
Honestly, all the people that come here and complain about the state of Open, griefing, etc. need to continuously write to FDev and complain that their single player experience is being ruined in Open so that FDev kills Open. Or states that this is a multiplayer game that has the capability to allow players a way to play in Private modes to escape the headaches so many find with Open.
Thank you for saving me 5 minutes, not answering the point as well as you did +1 sir
That or the "we all want to come back to open, there are no sheep" posts that would follow, pesky sheep, need to neuter their free will.
Thanks Cody, gotta love "Pink Floyd", listened to the whole thing while playing. +1
I already +repped you earlier, but well said.
I highly doubt it. If its on a different server and the other modes couldnt affect system influence of server the majority of the player groups that have adopted a faction would be the first to switch over because there is something unsettling about players being able to attack your meta game without you being attack them. You are assuming that open players just want to shoot other players.
For example, I want to play majority PVE and with the background sim; however, I do want to be able to shoot at other players if they are trying to wreck what I've built.
For the community goal my group recently did, to force players that wanted to mess with us into open play, I requested that it be a trade one. We play in open, so the only way for other players to try to deconstruct what we are building is to come into open and pirate us. By definition this feature isn't in solo.
I will never ask for a community goal that allows people to attack my group from solo mode, though they may give me one anyway. Open isn't about shooting people randomly.
If it were truly separate from the other modes, there would be some incentives to go there to balance out the risks as well (eg. trading more lucrative as background sim of hardcore mode would not be impacted by people trading in solo/group/open, fresh exploration content, community goals are not farmed by people playing solo/group, etc). You could make an influence on the galaxy and actually challenge people who try to undo it. Personally I've not really been shooting people (except once) mostly doing exploration and some PvE. However the community goals, the background simulator, all feels quite shallow because it becomes a matter of who can solo grind more, and even the PvP is rather low stakes (both risk and reward of it) for my taste. There's just a lack of... well, danger about Elite, as it is configured now.
The argument that the forum would be flooded with this and that is rather weak; it seems flooded by people not very happy by the open/solo/group single server design. This thread is on the 497th page at the moment after all.
Some people would of course not want anything to do with it - but a number of people have been clamoring for it. Since FD's design approach is "let's make everyone happy", then.... well, does it really hurt to try? Maybe your "doom and gloom" prediction that it would be deserted would turn out to be true. At least it would put an end to that discussion. As for getting more people to play a given mode, there's another option next to the proverbial "stick" (destroying other modes) - the "carrot"; giving people higher rewards.
As for open PvE, well, fine, although the way things are (you get less credits in open then solo), the only real purpose of it is socializing and the game very much lacks features for socializing - then again, this will probably get improved on in time. Since there is already an "unofficial" open PvE mode, it would not hurt to have an official one.
Last edited:
But why promote this mode rather than this one ? Only FD gets to decide that, and whatever mode they decide to promote (if they ever promote one) the rage on the forums will be nuclear.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If, as proposed, there would be no mode switching out of the proposed Locked game mode then there would be no reason to have incentives - the incentive would to play in a mode that locks in all its players and all of those players would experience the same chances to progress.
Regarding creating a second galactic background simulation, I would suggest that you read MB's quoted posts in the OP of this thread.
Last edited:
- Status