|
p.sure gating people who don't want to play in open out of content is a nonstarter
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:All frontier has to do is retool powerplay to involve player factions somehow and force people into open to make meaningful gains into the system. Bam, instant pvp content. The skeleton for actual interesting engagements is being laid out by engineers, we just need the meat and blood now. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:p.sure gating people who don't want to play in open out of content is a nonstarter Devs have already openly discussed incentivizing open for PP related activities. Giving players in open high influence for their actions. Of course it's not a guaranteed thing. However, from the discussion, it would appear that the only thing they strictly refuse to add incentive to is monetary rewards.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Lots of PowerPlay changes are coming so let's hope for the best and spearhead GalCop.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:p.sure gating people who don't want to play in open out of content is a nonstarter They aren't gating anyone, its just that not subjecting yourself to the risk of open pvp in territorial conflicts should mean that your contributions into the game shard are proportionally a whole lot weaker than those in open. e-less of a gate and more like a bottle neck I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Elite was never meant to be, and will never be, an open world mmo built upon player actions and interactions. I've come to terms with that and feel fortunate that there are still plenty of those who freely log into open and allow me to torment them. SC will hopefully be that experience many of the pvp players were hoping for, but it is shocking how crybaby a huge amount of SC players are even in early alpha, which has shaken my confidence quite a bit--despite the fact the game probably won't launch this side of the decade.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:They aren't gating anyone, its just that not subjecting yourself to the risk of open pvp in territorial conflicts should mean that your contributions into the game shard are proportionally a whole lot weaker than those in open. that's fair Fishreds99 posted:Elite was never meant to be, and will never be, an open world mmo built upon player actions and interactions. I've come to terms with that and feel fortunate that there are still plenty of those who freely log into open and allow me to torment them.  /
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Yeaaah, please don't use "hope" in a sentence with SC on it except its like " I hope star citizen loving collapsed already"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Fishreds99 posted:Elite was never meant to be, and will never be, an open world mmo built upon player actions and interactions. I've come to terms with that and feel fortunate that there are still plenty of those who freely log into open and allow me to torment them. These are the people who ran from EVE after getting ganked and losing everything a few times. With  catering to their every fear about ganking/pirating and the development staff pretty much turning a blind eye to any and all questions about the same, what else did you expect? The goonfear is strong in SC and it's probably going to grow exponentially in ED as this competition pushes on.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
LCL-Dead posted:These are the people who ran from EVE after getting ganked and losing everything a few times. With Agreed. Just a bizzare sentiment to have about internet spaceships and being unable to cope with them being blown up, generally. I'm not sure if any other genre attracts a comparable amount of whingers and people who are so against playing with others. As always, goons ruin everything, forever.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
LCL-Dead posted:Devs have already openly discussed incentivizing open for PP related activities. Giving players in open high influence for their actions. Of course it's not a guaranteed thing. However, from the discussion, it would appear that the only thing they strictly refuse to add incentive to is monetary rewards. They should incentivize the poo poo out of open play across the board.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Shredder posted:They should incentivize the poo poo out of open play across the board. Power play influence is probably the "safest" thing to give Open a bonus to (Rather than Nerf/Disable it in solo), yeah. Even something as small as an hour timer where you are stuck with Solo Values when you switch modes would help hinder people flipping back and forth to, due to impatience as much as Open mode players being able to keep going at full speed. John J Solo and Paul P Private will not even notice a difference, unless they care about the spread of galactic politics. Pretty much everything else, from income to pilot rank and faction standings, would be felt much more even if you are just trying to your own thing, or play with a couple friends without worrying about other players who spend their days pointing cargo scanners at stations. I'm sure plenty of private groups that bill themselves as "PvE centric" would still scream about what is primarily a player vs player driven tug of war not being something they can impact as readily as Open, though.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Shredder posted:They should incentivize the poo poo out of open play across the board. Is that suicide Eagle still griefing people nonstop at the Fuel Rats CG? Maybe they should incentivize Open play by fixing the utterly broken instancing, fixing the dumb grief exploits, polishing up the wing mechanics and social features, and fixing the PvP balance which is currently broke as gently caress (and looks to be getting even worse in 2.1).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Shredder posted:They should incentivize the poo poo out of open play across the board. No. No they shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
How many space dollars do the large multi cannons even cost? I just wanna bolt them on my FAS and chill out in a RES with a buddy or two, all this crafting and RNG business is fine and good but not really doing much for me 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:No. No they shouldn't. Yes they should. Higher risk, greater reward.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Yes they should. Higher risk, greater reward. lol. if someone posts "it's elite dangerous not elite ____" i'll have a lovely elite argument bingo!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Yes they should. Higher risk, greater reward. How many times do we have to go over this though? What 'higher risk'? You can't blockade anything, you can't prevent a specific group or player from entering a system/station/planet because instancing makes this impossible no matter how hardcore sundae wants to slap carebears around, no matter how 'dangerous' you want Elite (heh) to be, no matter how many cannons and guns and hours you stay up to try to prevent another player from doing anything, you can't because of instancing. No player or group can ever change the game for any other player because you will be in a separate instance than them, so separate, in fact, that they might be in open, private or solo! You don't know and the game rationalizes it in exactly the same way. If this was a real-deal one-universe-for-all-players-at-a-time-Em-Em-Oh game then sure, but it isn't.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
how pissy people get about other people they don't know playing in solo or private group never gets old 'loving carebears!!!!'
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Maybe they should incentivize Open play by fixing the utterly broken instancing, fixing the dumb grief exploits, polishing up the wing mechanics and social features, and fixing the PvP balance which is currently broke as gently caress (and looks to be getting even worse in 2.1). That sounds dangerously close to standard MMO design, didn't you know that ED isn't like a casual kiddies MMO holding your hand? :nallea- 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:How many times do we have to go over this though? What 'higher risk'? You can't blockade anything, you can't prevent a specific group or player from entering a system/station/planet because instancing makes this impossible no matter how hardcore sundae wants to slap carebears around, no matter how 'dangerous' you want Elite (heh) to be, no matter how many cannons and guns and hours you stay up to try to prevent another player from doing anything, you can't because of instancing. No player or group can ever change the game for any other player because you will be in a separate instance than them, so separate, in fact, that they might be in open, private or solo! You don't know and the game rationalizes it in exactly the same way. If you're running things that involve a lot of players, like CGs or powerplay, you have a high chance of running into other players and one of them could want to kill you. Just because you *can* fly around in the most populated areas in Open without seeing anyone doesn't mean you *will*.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Yes they should. Higher risk, greater reward. There already is - just as there's the chance that you might run into a hostile player who kills you, there's the chance that you might run into a friendly player who cooperates with you.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:how pissy people get about other people they don't know playing in solo or private group never gets old What's wrong with carebears anyways? Aren't they just friendly cuddly talking teddy bears? Why does the brown sea hate teddy bears teddy bears in space is like even better than normal teddy bears too
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There already is - just as there's the chance that you might run into a hostile player who kills you, there's the chance that you might run into a friendly player who cooperates with you. One of those is worth jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:lol.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
I already filled the ironicat and nallears boxes a few posts back.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
I still don't see how incentivizing open play in any way diminishes the experience of solo/private group players. Like, seriously? Why so against it? If you don't want to play open, you don't have to. There's no penalty. Not getting a bonus is NOT a penalty.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Dabir posted:One of those is worth jack poo poo. I regret to inform you that this is incorrect
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
OK yeah if you know what you're doing both of them are worth jack poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Kurr de la Cruz posted:I still don't see how incentivizing open play in any way diminishes the experience of solo/private group players. Like, seriously? Why so against it? If you don't want to play open, you don't have to. There's no penalty. Not getting a bonus is NOT a penalty. If you wanted something closer to common sense as opposed to salt, because of the the Devs likelihood of picking "Make Solo results worse, all done!", rather than "Make open results better." Even if it was limited to Power Play politics, instead of mission payouts or Naval reputation gains. Open players don't get any "incentive", in that case. But it's also a lot easier to just slap a non open penalty and call it a day dev effort wise, especially with how often they skew towards more grind rather than less. See also, adding NPC ships patrolling planetary outposts because oh gently caress, players are stacking those for progress/payouts. Instead of the escape pod retrieval missions that fail so fast, they can't even complete them if they take them with a cargo hold full of escape pods (Hey, are those fixed in the Beta?) Section Z fucked around with this message at 03:07 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Dabir posted:If you're running things that involve a lot of players, like CGs or powerplay, you have a high chance of running into other players and one of them could want to kill you. Just because you *can* fly around in the most populated areas in Open without seeing anyone doesn't mean you *will*. Yeah? Why do I care about the player that wants to kill other players? Would a PVP situation in open ~really~ affect the CG or Powerplay thing you are talking about in this hypothetical situation? Shouldn't that PVP player, who wants to kill other players, be actually contributing to that CG or Powerplay thing instead of trying to kill other players? Correct me if I am wrong but you have a very short list of ways that a PVP instance, right now in game, can affect Elite in the grand scheme of what you are trying to incentivize. Just because this player-that-wants-to-kill-another-player wants to kill other players doesn't make the game any more fun for anyone else besides that pvp player. They don't contribute to anything in the game, they don't have a mechanism to blockade a station nor is there a mechanism in place for them to really swing anything organically with PVP outside of forum posts and salt mining. Not everyone wants to deal with other players, and unfortunately the PVP-types are in a situation where chances are they will never affect another player in the universe because they can never be sure to put themselves in the same instance with them. If a player is in open or solo it is identical to you because you can't have an effect on them anyway because of instancing. Incentivizing open does nothing to change this fact, the system will still get hosed because of instancing. Kurr de la Cruz posted:I still don't see how incentivizing open play in any way diminishes the experience of solo/private group players. Like, seriously? Why so against it? If you don't want to play open, you don't have to. There's no penalty. Not getting a bonus is NOT a penalty. Because Frontier axed offline-single player mode, which was promised to the people that originally kickstarted it. The compromise that Frontier came up with was solo/private/open modes are all the same as far as the game is concerned, and you get a sort-of single player experience if you so choose. And the "penalty" in this instance is maybe I don't want to jump in open to play this space game? Maybe I want to go into private with 3 of my friends and just chill out having fun playing the game and not have to wrestle with the very real issue of open mode instancing. You want to deny me of affecting the universe because you have a misguided idea that incetivizing open over private/solo is going to somehow fix the underlying issue which is ~*instancing*~ by design of the game. This isn't EvE, unfortunately, and unless Frontier are going to do some massive redesigns no tweaks to solo/private/open are going to fix this.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Kurr de la Cruz posted:I still don't see how incentivizing open play in any way diminishes the experience of solo/private group players. Like, seriously? Why so against it? If you don't want to play open, you don't have to. There's no penalty. Not getting a bonus is NOT a penalty. If you genuinely are struggling to understand the position, consider that this is a bit like if Frontier added a zero behind all the prices and then declared that they didn't nerf credit gains. What's true in the absolute calculus of the videogame is meaningless compared to the relative experience of the player.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Anyone else getting a "Failed to read from response stream" error while trying to install the beta for Horizons? I've tried deleting the .part and .progress files from the test client folders, changing download method and unchecking virtual cache, and totally reinstalling it 3 times now to no avail.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
I'm not saying deny single/group players anything. Leave them exactly as they are, but throw on a 10% bonus to whatever for Open Players, as an incentive to play in open. How exactly is that diminishing the experience of single/group players?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Conskill posted:If you genuinely are struggling to understand the position, consider that this is a bit like if Frontier added a zero behind all the prices and then declared that they didn't nerf credit gains. What's true in the absolute calculus of the videogame is meaningless compared to the relative experience of the player. In practice, framing has a huge impact on how people perceive things. For some examples, the rested XP bonus in World of Warcraft was originally a penalty to players who stayed on grinding too long. People naturally hated it, so Blizzards repackaged the same scaling as bonus experience for people who had taken a break and the mechanic was loved. See also: every department store ever that advertises $30 handbags or whatever as $60 handbags on a 50% clearance.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Kurr de la Cruz posted:I'm not saying deny single/group players anything. Leave them exactly as they are, but throw on a 10% bonus to whatever for Open Players, as an incentive to play in open. How exactly is that diminishing the experience of single/group players? It invites the perception that Open is the correct way to play and that you're not making progress as fast as you should be if you are in Solo/Private. I don't think I would feel that way but some players probably would.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Tikal posted:
i have insider information that at the moment Achenar are at war with UGC.... 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
TheresaJayne posted:i have insider information that at the moment Achenar are at war with UGC.... We know.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
nightwisher posted:Anyone else getting a "Failed to read from response stream" error while trying to install the beta for Horizons? I've tried deleting the .part and .progress files from the test client folders, changing download method and unchecking virtual cache, and totally reinstalling it 3 times now to no avail.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Kurr de la Cruz posted:I'm not saying deny single/group players anything. Leave them exactly as they are, but throw on a 10% bonus to whatever for Open Players, as an incentive to play in open. How exactly is that diminishing the experience of single/group players? lol they'll make 90% of what manly open players make. open players who totally won't abuse instancing (or the oft-overlooked ignore function) to achieve the same effect. you need to get over the fact that solo and group players exist and don't want to be part of your John Lockean murder hobo simulator. who cares what they do or don't do? let_it_go.gif Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 13:17 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
Anyone watch last night's livestream? Anything interest/useful?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 13:29
|
|