When will we see Competitive Community Goals in the main game?

[Marc_Hicks]

During the Beta Test for 2.3, FDev held a Community Goal to test its new "Competitive Community Goal" mechanic-which was ostensibly a CG with two parties, but which only 1 party could successfully complete.

This was an exciting development for CG's, IMHO, yet since the release of 2.3 I have not seen a single CG that uses this mechanic-in spite of how many different scenarios it could potentially cover.


So my question for the Devs is-will we bee seeing Competitive Community Goals appearing in the near future, or were there more kinks that needed to be ironed out first?

Hope to hear something soon on this matter.

CMDR Marcus Hicks II.

 

[Gunnet]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but haven't these happened a fair bit? The relatively recent competing Fed/Imp CGs at Maia for example.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but haven't these happened a fair bit? The relatively recent competing Fed/Imp CGs at Maia for example.

Were they really competitive though? I couldn't take part, so couldn't ascertain if it was properly competitive (i.e. only one side can win). For a truly competitive experience, they will need to make it so you can only sign up to one side in the CG!

 

[Riverside]

I didn't participate so I'm not sure how it works but certainly I'd like to see them used. Even stuff like the battle of Lugh with multiple opposing CGs are fun but the final outcome was slightly spoilt by the misunderstanding of the Fed side about the importance of completing the CG vs what it took to actually win the war.

The competitive mechanic would be helpful in situations like that, particularly if combat & trade CGS (on both sides of a war) could all be linked together in a way that made sense.

Perhaps the right opportunity has just not yet come up.

 

[Gunnet]

Were they really competitive though? I couldn't take part, so couldn't ascertain if it was properly competitive (i.e. only one side can win). For a truly competitive experience, they will need to make it so you can only sign up to one side in the CG!

Players on both sides received the cash payout for their tier, but only the winning side had a new outpost built in Maia. I suppose it's not competitive for players who just want the credits, but it's definitely competitive for those of us who have an RP stake in which side wins. There's a nice sense of friendly competition in the CG threads as well.

I'm not sure it really makes sense for factions to refuse cargo from independent traders because they're also selling to the other side. It would definitely make sense in the case of CGs for combat bonds between two warring factions though.

 

[Red Anders]

During the Beta Test for 2.3, FDev held a Community Goal to test its new "Competitive Community Goal" mechanic-which was ostensibly a CG with two parties, but which only 1 party could successfully complete.

This was an exciting development for CG's, IMHO, yet since the release of 2.3 I have not seen a single CG that uses this mechanic-in spite of how many different scenarios it could potentially cover.


So my question for the Devs is-will we bee seeing Competitive Community Goals appearing in the near future, or were there more kinks that needed to be ironed out first?

Hope to hear something soon on this matter.

CMDR Marcus Hicks II.

Pretty sure they won't be doing it Marc, simpy because of the torrent of butthurt that would follow when the losing side's players (or 'the Empire' as they're more commonly known in CGs *) realised they didn't get any reward for their week's efforts as a result of their CG not completing.

* Obviously this would not apply if the Empire's rewards were at Morai levels.

 

[smiths121]

I didn't participate so I'm not sure how it works but certainly I'd like to see them used. Even stuff like the battle of Lugh with multiple opposing CGs are fun but the final outcome was slightly spoilt by the misunderstanding of the Fed side about the importance of completing the CG vs what it took to actually win the war.

The competitive mechanic would be helpful in situations like that, particularly if combat & trade CGS (on both sides of a war) could all be linked together in a way that made sense.

Perhaps the right opportunity has just not yet come up.

+ Rep, I still get salty about Lugh if I think too hard lol. It was an amzing time though, and I think competitive CGs would have helped the understanding on the Fed. That would have stopped all the indy pilots switching to the Lugh Bounty Hunt after completing the Fed one!

Simon

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Were they really competitive though? I couldn't take part, so couldn't ascertain if it was properly competitive (i.e. only one side can win). For a truly competitive experience, they will need to make it so you can only sign up to one side in the CG!

Yes they were.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

afaik the only thing they have tested in that beta, that having to CGs that end together if ONE reaches its goal.

and the rewards would be payed out for both,

and yes, that system should have been active already when we had the battle for lugh

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

+ Rep, I still get salty about Lugh if I think too hard lol. It was an amzing time though, and I think competitive CGs would have helped the understanding on the Fed. That would have stopped all the indy pilots switching to the Lugh Bounty Hunt after completing the Fed one!

Simon

Ahh, the good old days of the Lugh war. I remember that time and it was a lot of fun. Happy I was on the winning side.

 

[Marshall...]

Ahh, the good old days of the Lugh war. I remember that time and it was a lot of fun. Happy I was on the winning side.

I was about to mention Lugh and you beat me to it!