Okay, folks. I went over responses to my last post, and read other people's comments, and refined my notes and possible solutions.
So, first here's my notes as I read through this topic:
- Solo players see Open bonuses as unfair and impractical.
- Some see Open bonuses as a punishment, just as much as lowering Solo payout.
- Some believe Solo players are, by default, not coordinating with Groups. I disagree strongly.
- Some think that Open players are the ones who abuse Solo to meet their goals. True to a degree.
- Blockades seem to be an unpopular solution. Some believe this is Mafioso or forcing Solo players to deal with the actions or intentions of those in Open. I disagree.
- Some believe CGs aren’t a competition, despite the fact that two opposing sides
can have CGs to counter the actions of the other.
- Some see doing nothing to balance the modes is a compromise.
- Some think that those who bought the game to play Open but have turned to Solo or quit playing due to “unfair” rules or bugs will only return if nonconsensual PVP is ruled as wrong by FD and they begin taking action.
- It is believed the actions of non-coordinating players will balance out overall and therefore CGs are fair as is. I disagree with this belief.
- Someone suggested different accounts for Solo and Open, but this didn’t take Groups into account, which is a mode itself. There could be ways to make such a system work, but Frontier probably won’t even consider this. The modes must be maintained.
So, I feel like I'm starting to actually get to the roots of our Solo vs Open vs Groups debate. While I still consider higher payouts for Open and NPC blockades as fair and making sense, many are resistant or opposed to such ideas. In order to move forward, I simply have to understand that higher Open payouts and blockades will not be accepted under any conditions (at least within this topic). Therefore, I put together some more possible solutions to improve the Open and Solo experience and the imbalances between them.
Refined Potential Solutions
- Once a CG is accepted under a certain mode, that CG must be finished in that mode. If you pick to do a CG in Open, your contributions toward that CG only counts if you contribute in Open. However, you can still play any mode you like.
- Always give counter CGs for any CG that involves a conflict or competition between two opposing sides (like what was done in Lugh). This way players can work against opposition without being forced to play any certain mode.
- Solo players who would otherwise play Open complain about piracy being such an awkward situation and feeling left out as a career decision. Frontier must fine tune piracy by giving pirates better tools for their trade. Some have said piracy tools are not effective and/or practical enough for pirating human players, and NPCs can’t be negotiated with. Also, it may be appropriate to give pirates CGs.
- Solo players who would otherwise play Open complain about ramming, ineffective or inefficient laws, and players killing for no obvious purpose. These issues could be addressed with 1.3, but to what extent still isn’t certain. To be continued….
- As for people concerned about greifing, we could allow players to make their intentions clear at the beginning, during, or after the interdiction, where the interdicting player sends one of three general reasons to the interdictee at the press of a button- interdiction for piracy, interdiction for legal search (scan) in the cases of player blockades and patrols, and interdiction for other reason(s). The interdicting player would not have to choose, as such a tool is for the benefit of the interdicting player to let the interdicted player know what’s expected. If you get interdicted and you receive the pirating message, then you know the conditions of not getting attacked or killed. Same with an interdiction for blockade/patrol purposes. If the interdicting player sends “Other reasons” as a reason, or chooses nothing, then you can expect that the player isn’t role playing or wanting anything for your survival. And, of course, such messages could be used deceptively.
- Perceived high levels of griefing can be lessened by starting new players in random systems. In other words, there’s not one or two starting systems. Nearly any or all systems can serve as starting systems. But, the player does get to choose to start in a random Federation, Empire, Alliance, or Independent system that doesn’t require a system permit. This stands to improve all modes by spreading players out better. Griefers and honest PVPers would still be attracted to popular systems, but wouldn’t be in such a concentration in the other random starter systems. I think this would improve Open for those who want to play Open in a fairer environment. This also gives Open players more of an opportunity to meet a player that isn’t hunting strictly for PVP or to ruin another player’s experience. And, of course, Solo players will be able to choose a galactic nation to start at.
- Solo needs some attention- so introducing NPCs with some sensible interaction system would show Frontier is still committed to improving the Solo experience in step with all other Modes.
- Increase the value of human commanders in their worth as a bounty or combat bond. Such payments should scale according to ship type, overall value of the enemy ship, and the combat ranking of the pilot. To me, this initially seems reasonable.
- I saw somewhere someone suggested a creation of a fourth mode, one that is like Open but is for PVE players. In other words, players can’t kill each other unless they’re on opposite sides in a CZ or have an active bounty on their head. But in all other cases, no PVP. Not sure about this idea, though.
-
Adding a new role, System Authority, could improve both Solo and Open. A commander could sign up as a system authority, and patrol the system. A player could do this in Solo (patrolling only for NPCs) and a player in Open could this (patrolling for NPCs and Commanders). Perhaps a player should only be allowed to sign up as System Authority if they have a certain level of rep with the controlling faction (Allied or Friendly, for instance). And if the player who is acting as a system authority violates the law of the system (abusing power, killing for no legal reason) then that person gets the appropriate fine or bounty, but perhaps twice as much in this instance, and is prevented from serving as system authority for a certain time span, or permanently (I favor a finite time span). Also, more players signed up as system authority should make black market values increase, creating potential cat-and-mouse games for smugglers and authorities.
This is all I got for now. As always, feel free to comment and critique. Thanks for reading
