Why not just close open play fdev?

[Bottom Hat]

cream and punishment

Oh that is fantastic Sir - you win the punternet for today!!

 

[Robert Maynard]

A car has crumple zones to make it safer to drive but can end up being less aerodynamic because its profile as it cuts through the air is greater. Do you write letters to manufacturers and the government complaining that to drive your car on open roads its design has been compromised? Or is that a recognised element of driving on open roads with other road users, including pedestrians?

.... don't forget air-bags, ABS, active stability control. auto-braking, power steering, seat-belts, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, etc..

Safety related additions I have no issue with....

There seems to be an assumption that because some players can outfit their ships like tanks that others should require to compromise their ship's outfit to accommodate those who play in tanks.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

Yup, this age old gospel again. I'm just not sure, if I still would call that 'playing' when your only option is to escape. Why would someone halfway sane in its mind want that and not going Solo or PG instead? Is escaping a gank really such a thrilling pastime, even after the umpteenth time? I guess I would rather doing CGs instead, if I had a foible for grindy and pointless activities. But to each its own I guess...

That said, I have personally no issues with ganking if and when I'm playing in Open (in all the past 7 years it happened maybe 2 times to me, so really no drama from my side). On the flipside, I also don't feel like a hero when playing in Open. For the way I'm playing it's pretty much the same to me as I avoid the well known hotspots. These days I prefer Solo though, mainly as a means of 'voting with my feet'.

Of course play whichever game mode that suits your interests.
Take the example of the CG - maybe after the 50th identical supercruise run to drop off supplies, where you've shrugged off the interdiction of the same NPC that's been following you on the previous 35 runs, for a CG that's already guaranteed to finish whether or not you were even taking part, for a tiered credit reward that's a tenth what you would have made mining in the same time span - you decide you want to introduce some more risk so you fly it in open.

If you're instanced with a player are they a fellow trader, a pirate, a roleplayed opponent to the CG goal, a petty ganker?
What will happen if they talk to you?
Do they want you to turn around and withdraw from the CG?
Do they want to take your goods to sell themselves?
Do they just want to see you blow up?
If they pull you, will you have time to high wake and try again?
Will you be able to low wake and push forward to completion, tanking damage on the way?
Will they get the goods from your hold?
Will you survive against the threat?
Maybe you have guns - if they're a pirate could you fight them off? (I've done this before in my mining ship)

It's a much higher risk than an NPC that will tickle you with turreted pulse lasers.
If you have the rebuy and the experience to manage, or a desire to develop those skills, it can be much more interesting.

If you don't like that sort of gameplay, you're not obliged to fly in open.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

.... don't forget air-bags, ABS, active stability control. auto-braking, power steering, seat-belts, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, etc..

Safety related additions I have no issue with....

There seems to be an assumption that because some players can outfit their ships like tanks that others should require to compromise their ship's outfit to accommodate those who play in tanks.

You're not obliged to play in open. If you do there's more risk and you should be prepared for it. That's FDev game design and the trade off for playing around player hotspots in open.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

⚰

 

[Robert Maynard]

You're not obliged to play in open. If you do there's more risk and you should be prepared for it. That's FDev game design and the trade off for playing around player hotspots in open.

Indeed - no-one requires to play in Open to engage in any game feature, by design.

Odd that some seem to be rather put out that others can continue to play the game without them though.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

Indeed - no-one requires to play in Open to engage in any game feature, by design.

Odd that some seem to be rather put out that others can continue to play the game without them though.

I don't think anybody is hugely "put out". There are issues of game design that place greater reward for less challenging gameplay. This is a central core throughout Elite - whether the question is about choosing game mode (Open, PG, Solo) or career.

This isn't even a question of PvP vs PvE. If you look purely at non-PvP activities, mining is the easiest money with almost the least risk. If you know what you're doing then exploration can be very good money with minimal risk. The highest risk PvE gameplay, AX combat, has a very poor credits per hour return until you really know what you're doing and even then it's mediocre. Whereas being able to go AFK and grind wing massacre missions in a low RES is almost competitive with mining for payout, but has minimal to know risk if you set it up right.

The highest risk gameplay of PvP (not purely ganking) has a guaranteed net negative credit earn because you will lose ships, and the chances of getting any bounties at all, let alone enough for a fraction of your rebuy, are extremely slim. Then add on top the artificial cap to bounty rewards.

So you then have a game balance that means not only is there no element of risk/reward system for payouts, nor is there an equality nor parity of esteem in potential rewards by career, but actually you have to supplement most given career options with mining to break even and sustain them.

People aren't put out that players would rather be in solo. People are put out that the game prioritises and undercuts the value of all activities by making the reward greater and more efficient by never doing anything outside of solo or limited private circles. It's an issue of game design, not personal preferences.

 

[PRORABBIT67]

Source: https://youtu.be/GZ3nxtovdFM

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't think anybody is hugely "put out". There are issues of game design that place greater reward for less challenging gameplay. This is a central core throughout Elite - whether the question is about choosing game mode (Open, PG, Solo) or career.

Repeated threads on the topic of "make [game feature] Open only!" would seem to demonstrate that some are.

This isn't even a question of PvP vs PvE. If you look purely at non-PvP activities, mining is the easiest money with almost the least risk. If you know what you're doing then exploration can be very good money with minimal risk and the highest risk PvE gameplay of AX combat has a very poor credits per hour return until you really know what you're doing and even then it's mediocre, where being able to go AFK and grind wing massacre missions in a low RES is almost competitive with mining currently.

The non-combat activities take unavoidable time - whereas some of the combat activities can be cheesed.

The highest risk gameplay of PvP (not purely ganking) has a guaranteed net negative credit earn because you will lose ships, and the chances of getting any bounties at all let alone enough for a fraction of your rebuy are extremely slim. Then add on top the artificial cap to bounty rewards.

If PvP was specifically rewarded then it would be exploited (again). Frontier learned early that players will collude where possible to earn rewards designed for contested encounters uncontested.

So you then have a game balance that means not only is there no element of risk/reward system for payouts, nor is there an equality nor parity of esteem in potential rewards by career, but actually you have to supplement most given career options with mining to break even and sustain them.

How would a risk/reward system work?

If it was based on the ship used then those in heavily engineered meta-combat ships would receive lower rewards than those who were in less capable ships.

People aren't put out that players would rather be in solo. People are put out that the game prioritises and undercuts the value of all activities by making the reward greater and more efficient by never doing anything outside of solo or limited private circles. It's an issue of game design, not personal preferences.

Which seems to be a complaint that PvP (or the possibility of it occurring) is not specifically rewarded - the lack of such a reward is perhaps unsurprising in a game that is not designed to revolve around PvP and where PvP itself is an optional extra. Being opposed by other players is something that players do for "fun" in this game, not specific rewards.

 

[Bashy81]

Indeed - no-one requires to play in Open to engage in any game feature, by design.

Odd that some seem to be rather put out that others can continue to play the game without them though.

I don't think anybody is hugely "put out". There are issues of game design that place greater reward for less challenging gameplay. This is a central core throughout Elite - whether the question is about choosing game mode (Open, PG, Solo) or career.

Repeated threads on the topic of "make [game feature] Open only!" would seem to demonstrate that some are.

Is it so odd that players who prefer to engage with the added risk of Open, wish to compete on the same playing field with the same possibility of risk on all sides?
Some venue that is part of the main game so more meaningful than fire-&-forget matchups, yet separated from the main pan-modal game by some layer or other. Oh i dont know what it could be that would be ideal for this, hmmm, lets call it Powerplay. Rubbish name for it tbf, but its just bluesky thinking we can work on the name later..

 

[Robert Maynard]

Is it so odd that players who prefer to engage with the added risk of Open, wish to compete on the same playing field with the same possibility of risk on all sides?

It is clear that those who consciously choose to engage in game features in Open would seem to want compensated for their choice.

Some venue that is part of the main game so more meaningful than fire-&-forget matchups, yet separated from the main pan-modal game by some layer or other. Oh i dont know what it could be that would be ideal for this, hmmm, lets call it Powerplay. Rubbish name for it tbf, but its just bluesky thinking we can work on the name later..

Only one game feature would seem to be on the very short list of those that Frontier would even consider investigating for such a change - we've yet to find out whether the investigation came to any conclusion.

 

[Vetinari]

added risk of Open,

You really are going to have to explain this? What the heck is the added 'risk; in a game where avoiding a player interdiction gank is as boring as avoiding an NPC gank but usually a lot more repetitive as the NPCs arent designed to interrupt the game every 30 seconds.

What is risk in a game where pixels explode = nothing according to you?

And the rest about PVP death, yeah right, wake out when shields or hull gone if not a pre-agreed fight to death is much more usual. So no loss apart from agreed fight to death. No added risk?

What are you talking about, playing in Open doesnt make you hard or admirable you know, often it turns people into the opposite.

57 Systems in space for every single player registered with Frontier. Not the best set up for PVP is it?

 

[Deleted member 192138]

Is it so odd that players who prefer to engage with the added risk of Open, wish to compete on the same playing field with the same possibility of risk on all sides?
Some venue that is part of the main game so more meaningful than fire-&-forget matchups, yet separated from the main pan-modal game by some layer or other. Oh i dont know what it could be that would be ideal for this, hmmm, lets call it Powerplay. Rubbish name for it tbf, but its just bluesky thinking we can work on the name later..

Power play does not provide the type of content you're referring to. Rather it's one of the game styles that most intensely rewards activity being buried into solo play and was the most prominent area where botting and avoiding player encounters was found to be a substantive issue.

 

[Vetinari]

What is this botting you speak of and how does it work? Not the script but the actual result, what happens in game (or in your mind)?

 

[Deleted member 192138]

In the case of power play it's a script or application or whatever that hauls merits from A to B, automated without players needing to interact. So it buys the merits, plots the routes and jumps back and forth.

Similar principle could probably be used for standard commodity haulage to push BGS influence as well.

One of the reasons I steer clear of these sorts of gameplay - because it's undercut by exploits in solo.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

I've already stopped reading here. If you'd read my posts carefully (especially post #484), you would know that I give CGs a wide berth, for exactly the same reasons you describe here. But if one nonsense only works with the help of another nonsense, then go ahead. I certainly won't spoil your fun.

You asked why people in general may engage in a gameplay activity, not why you specifically should want to.

 

[Borko]

Solo is this:

Open is this:

Both are fun, just at different times. Choose accordingly.

edit: yes, yes, open usually looks more like the first. The real fish-slapping happens at CGs and other hotspots. I like it!

 

[Vetinari]

Open is so much not that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

PvE doesn't necessarily mean to go from A to B relentlessly. That's just not the way I'm playing and not the way I would recommend [*]. I frequently mix my activities while none of these can really be optimised for its task when I have to think about PvP. The only exception here are the PvPers themselves: Their ships are guaranteed optimised for the task (maybe some few and rare exceptions aside). And herein lies the rub.

[*] But if that's actually your approach to PvE, I kinda understand why you prefer Open and PvP...

I think you are forgetting that objective based PvE in ED (for the BGS, CGs, Powerplay) is exactly relentless A to B mechanics- the BGS is the least repetitive but still requires a lot of samey actions; CGs like the recent two are deliveries and are a race to deliver the most- Powerplay is the most repetitive because you then take that one CG and multiply it by however many control systems you have.

Players ask for more varied NPCs, FD have given you Open with the most varied NPCs of all- other players.

 

[Borko]

Open is so much not that.

I guess. I just so much want it to be. Especially the part with the fish.