Agreed.
- Status
Agreed.
What like they did with C&P. The only consistency is the inconsistency - IMO
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I expect that the changes to C&P were as a result of Frontier's apparent desire to encourage more players to play in Open - and the previous disparity in consequences for the targeted player (rebuy, loss of cargo, exploration data, NPC Pilot, etc.) and the attacker (6,000 Cr. bounty) did not seem to encourage those who might, more often than not, be the target in such an interaction.
"It" has to change, "it" being content geared towards PvP.
"It" cannot be done by restricting gameplay from players who have paid and are actively engaged in this gameplay.
It's obvious, if anything is going to be changed, it's going to be an addition. Either by adding a layer on the existing BGS/PP mechanic, or by introducing a new mechanic.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The "it" I was responding to was the contention that Player Factions being the same as NPC Factions, in terms of the BGS and pan-modal interaction, "has to change" to suit those players who prefer PvP.
Fairy Nuff. To be honest, I started reading the thread and by the end I was confused about what "it" was. The "it" that needs to change is quite a dynamic concept and changes from post to post ("L.A. to Chicago")
But then a diddy sprang to mind, as it always does.
https://youtu.be/ZG_k5CSYKhg?t=108
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Fairy Nuff. To be honest, I started reading the thread and by the end I was confused about what "it" was. The "it" that needs to change is quite a dynamic concept and changes from post to post ("L.A. to Chicago")
Those seeking changes to the status quo don't present a single focused proposal - it varies from "remove Solo and Private Groups" at one extreme to the more benign "increased reward for Open play based on the increased risk".
The former is extremely unlikely to happen due to the fact that all three game modes have been part of the published design from the outset and the fact that Frontier have stated, on more than one occasion, that they consider the game modes to be equal and valid choices.
Going down the risk based reward route might end up with unexpected (to those seeking such a change) outcomes - as many decisions made by the player contribute to the level of risk (or lack thereof) that they experience.
Common, my proposal is good. There are like what, 100 PFs out of thousands NPC factions. Make those open only the rest stays the same.
PP, it is a failure anyway why not make it OPEN only and let PvP rule this domain. You can still haul cargo but cannot avoid direct resistance.
SOLO, add any features that would be if ED is a single player game. I just dont know what additions SOLO players miss because of balancing the MP part, I know they are restricted in some ways.
They are all NPC factions. Just because you convinced Frontier to change the name of one, doesn't make it yours.
It's still an NPC faction you try to influence, from any mode, just like the rest.
There are lots of options for PP, of which quite a few have nothing to do with the mode system.
That's just another red herring and you know it.
Solo currently miss out on Wingmen and Multicrew.
Frontier cold make AI ships/crew to fill those roles but currently have not.
I just gave a good proposal to make PF and PP open only to force direct opposition instead of PG wars, will give meaning to PvP, SOLO players will remain un affected and are free to interact with NPCs bgs factions.
I also suggested for vastly improvements of the SOLO player expirience by giving them things that wont be availble in OPEN.
Does it sound like griefing to you?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Forcing players to play in Open to be able to influence their Faction seems to be a non-starter, given that the majority of players don't seem to get involved in PvP (i.e. the majority of Player Factions may also have been introduced for player groups that don't get involved in PvP).
Making changes to Solo would affect Open indirectly - as players can mode switch at will.
Making changes to Solo would affect Open indirectly - as players can mode switch at will.
Nope. Sounds like: please can I have more players who are flying non-combat ships? Because I am too scared to face combat ships, so I'll not consider ideas that will pit combat ship vs combat ship. Instead I want traders and couriers that don't provide any challenge to me. Otherwise I might lose. And someone will make a youtube of me losing. And that's no fun. The only fun youtubes are those of me killing a whole bunch of sub par ships.
It sounds like: I can dish out, but I can't take it.
WHAT????
Anyone involved in PF vs PF or PP vs PP will have combat ships of they chose so.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Emphasis on if "they chose to". As this content need not be combat oriented.
Yes it is. Their choice of which ships to fly with. They chose to fly min maxed trader, thats on them.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed. Just as they can choose which mode to engage in the content in.
Well than welcome to another hotel California thread.
Sounds like this thread is taking the ussual turn.
So to conclude and answer the original suggestion:
OPEN only content is a must. New layer or existing layer, doesnt matter. PvP takes the most effort and preparation both from combat and trader ships. It has to be rewarded accordingly.
So to conclude and answer the original suggestion:
OPEN only content is a must. New layer or existing layer, doesnt matter. PvP takes the most effort and preparation both from combat and trader ships. It has to be rewarded accordingly.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It usually does when there are demands for existing content to be made inaccessible in two of the three game modes (and completely inaccessible to players on consoles without premium platform access).
A new layer - that's a much less contentious request that would very probably gain more widespread support.
Because PvP is so effective in influencing the BGS right? No it's not. So whoever is doing the BGS and PP will not have PvP fitted ships. They'll be subpar to PvP builds. Just the way you like it. You having the advantage, no opposition.
You know this, don't play coy. It's transparent and it's not fooling anyone.
Doesn't need to be min/maxed traders, shielded traders don't pose a threat to you either. As I said before, you will argue anything as long as you're the one having the advantage, and will cry foul when that advantage is negated.
Can dish out, can't take it.
- Status