That's not a very smart trader then, you don't bail on your fighter escort.
- Status
That's not a very smart trader then, you don't bail on your fighter escort.
<snip> This is precisely why open and solo should be separated. There will be 2 versions of the game....the trading game and the frag fest.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is precisely why Robert posted the quotes from Michael Brookes.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The reasoning behind the posting of the quoted posts? Simple - you referred to a desire to have open and solo split - Michael is on record as saying that that is not in the plan.
I call it "clever use of game mechanics".
Yes, open and solo should have been seperated. But that ship has sailed. So what we're left with is an incredibly unbalanced game with one of the worst grinds in recent history.
Last edited by a moderator:
and so it should be fixed surely?
I'm a casual player. I started a week after launch. I fly an A-class Python and could have been in a T9 two weeks ago if I'd wanted. I'm only 40 million away from being able to comfortably move into a 400 ton trading Anaconda with an A6 FSD and A6 shield generator. That's only 9 more hours of trading. Roughly 1 week of casual play.
micky1up
Banned
nothing personal about a clear objective sound reasonable statement of my opinion
to me an 84er and kickstater backer there is only one option OPEN its the game i dreamed about all those years ago anything else is just a watered down pale shadow
Last edited:
I meant what's the reasoning behind the solo/open merge. I realise you are not Michael but perhaps you have some insight on how a solo/open merge is beneficial to the game.
How can they be merged when they were never separate in the first place, from the very start?
With your ability to make money so fast I wouldn't have thought you'd be so risk averse.
Sandro is right, of course, whilst still delivering a game that is wrong. The problem as I see it is not the design, but the implementation, and the fact that they went GA long before it was ready, and with bits of the jigsaw in place almost at random. The design (see the DDA) seemed (on paper at least, since we do not see it in game) to have the bases covered. For the game to be Elite, there must be a level of piracy, and traders who do not accept that should be playing Euro Trucker instead. So I fully agree with Sandro's points about the get out of interdiction free card. They broke it, and it should be fixed. But it is pointless to do so without fixing all the placeholders and other incomplete stuff elsewhere otherwise, as the OP says, most traders will just give up and play in solo.
I have no problem with the concept of open and solo modes. I do, however, have a huge problem with FD failing to make the AI harder, so that solo is seen as 'easy mode'. I understand that to some people, avoiding any possibility of meeting the jerks in-game is of utmost importance, and for them, solo is a prerequisite. There are also people who will accept being 'beaten' by an NPC, but not a PC: solo for them too. But allowing easy transfer from solo to open when solo is clearly 'easy mode' is, well, just wrong. And the correct fix is not to make solo and open separate games with no transfer (though that would be better than what we have), but to fix the underlying problem of 'easy mode'.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
From the Kickstarter FAQ:
Solo, private groups and open share the same galactic background simulation. They are simply different settings of the matchmaking system, i.e. solo will match with no players; private groups will match players playing in that group; open will match players playing in open. The ability to group switch between the three game modes has been a feature of the game from the outset.
I would never do that to someone in open. They need to leave the fsd cool down alone. Give the trader a chance to escape. I would also give the type-6 and up more hard points for weapons to better defend against other people.
Making solo mode so hard no one wants to play in there seems harsh. Solo will always be easy mode. Just split em.
For me, there is no use to trade in Open. The risk of losing your ship is higher in open and you don't get any benefits for risking it. As long as there are no benefits I will always trade in a private group or just plain solo. I will do BH in open, but that's about it. Even exploring I will not do in open. Why risk your ship when you don't have to. For me Open play is like an mmo PvP server. I will only enter it when I have something to gain, and for me that is, as of now, only when I do Bounty Hunting.
Sandro's post is based on a fallacy: That in the following situation there exists an outcome that lets the trader escape with all cargo.
Situation: A trader in a Lakon is successfully interdicted by a pirate in a ship that is restricting FSD charge of the Lakon and is faster in regular space than the Lakon
Example: Asp vs Any Lakon.
Possible outcomes:
The trader surrenders the cargo as demanded and leaves
The trader gets destroyed for refusing to comply
The trader surrenders the cargo and is destroyed
The trader refuses to surrender the cargo at first, gets his ship almost destroyed and then surrenders the cargo
Anything else is just unreasonable. In 30-40 hours of watching various pirate streams, I have never, ever seen a Lakon successfully fight back and escape with his entire cargo hold. Just last night I saw a Type 9 with a full combat loadout and shield cells attempt self defense against an Asp, and he failed horribly with a multi-million credit repair bill on top of 20t of lost Palladium.
Sandro's fallacy here is that the trader can improve either outcome by equipping the ship for defense. That is incorrect, and will in fact make the loss worse for the trader, as the rebuy of an unarmed ship is considerably lower than the rebuy of a ship with weapons, defense mechanisms and armor. Considerably. Lower.
For example, the rebuy of a typically D-equipped, undefendend Lakon Type 7 is 1.177.023
but if we install just what Sandro suggests, armor (which is ridiculously expensive on the Type 7), some turreted lasers, a strong 4A shield and Point defense turrets, the rebuy rises to 2.050.531
, and that is significant. So not only does your trader become worse with all that extra weight limiting jump range, in case of a piracy encounter you'll still find yourself still outgunned beyond any chance.
I seriously doubt we will ever have a combat "balance" where a single trader (in a pure trading ship) will be able to refuse the demands of a single pirate and not become a space wreck
Situation: A trader in a Lakon is successfully interdicted by a pirate in a ship that is restricting FSD charge of the Lakon and is faster in regular space than the Lakon
Example: Asp vs Any Lakon.
Possible outcomes:
The trader surrenders the cargo as demanded and leaves
The trader gets destroyed for refusing to comply
The trader surrenders the cargo and is destroyed
The trader refuses to surrender the cargo at first, gets his ship almost destroyed and then surrenders the cargo
Anything else is just unreasonable. In 30-40 hours of watching various pirate streams, I have never, ever seen a Lakon successfully fight back and escape with his entire cargo hold. Just last night I saw a Type 9 with a full combat loadout and shield cells attempt self defense against an Asp, and he failed horribly with a multi-million credit repair bill on top of 20t of lost Palladium.
Sandro's fallacy here is that the trader can improve either outcome by equipping the ship for defense. That is incorrect, and will in fact make the loss worse for the trader, as the rebuy of an unarmed ship is considerably lower than the rebuy of a ship with weapons, defense mechanisms and armor. Considerably. Lower.
For example, the rebuy of a typically D-equipped, undefendend Lakon Type 7 is 1.177.023
but if we install just what Sandro suggests, armor (which is ridiculously expensive on the Type 7), some turreted lasers, a strong 4A shield and Point defense turrets, the rebuy rises to 2.050.531
, and that is significant. So not only does your trader become worse with all that extra weight limiting jump range, in case of a piracy encounter you'll still find yourself still outgunned beyond any chance.
I seriously doubt we will ever have a combat "balance" where a single trader (in a pure trading ship) will be able to refuse the demands of a single pirate and not become a space wreck
- Status