Answers from the devs #2

Hello Ziggy, long time no see, I see you're headbutting against my Captain, lovely sight indeed.

Gonna throw this out there before I join the conversation, I'm not here to instigate/stir up emotions, just want to have some civil debate with people.

From what I've read and followed with this conversation so far, the issue is that pirate eliminates risk by using overwhelming number, traders do it by using Solo mode.

The parallel drawn here is incongurent in the sense that there is always the chance that a large number of pirates get surprised by an equal or larger force. The possibility exists.

On the other hand, unless you want to call NPC interdiction "threatening" and equivalent to the risk taken by pirates in Open where a group of enemy player group or a group of bounty hunter might be waiting to catch their prey, I frankly disagree.

Many pirates got blown up in the past, myself included by overwhelming numbers, bad decisions, underestimating the enemy, carelessness, etc, Despite having a full wing or two in the instance.

I honest cannot see any possibility of risk for traders eliminating risk by going into Solo, other than a careless boost into the side of a station or just wanting to get blown up by NPCs.

I don't find the two being equivalent to the slightest degree.

Well you guys keep trying to make it about risk.

Risk is entirely dependent on ability, relative ship type and loadout. Many traders run with no shields or light shields and no guns - they are often ridiculed for it. Risky wouldn't you say?

Their risk from AI ships is high - particularly AI wings or high level combat AI - bearing in mind these are not usually combat ready/enabled players.


When I'm in open and I get bounced by a wing the risk certainly isn't on the wing.

And with instancing the way it is it seems highly unlikely that a wing coming is going to come up against another wing - we keep getting told it's broken and wings can't fight other wings.

Is that not true - is at actually working after all?
 
And still many traders get blown up by NPC's so there's no eliminating risk in total in the game. Fair nitpick.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=166663

I'll rephrase accordingly.

Why is it ok for pirates to avoid risk as much as possible, but it's not ok for traders to avoid risk as much as possible?

Keeping in mind the post I replied to: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=167367&page=17&p=2558432&viewfull=1#post2558432

"It's nice to have a choice, isn't it? :)"
"Not when it gives some players the option to avoid risk"

That same trader in solo may then hop into open and use his safely acquired profit to shoot people at random, perhaps the same pirates he was choosing to avoid. It's not like every trader is a peaceful guy who enjoys space trucking. Many people hop modes like this specifically to fund their pvp.

The main issue is people using the mode options to gain an advantage or make the efforts of those who stick to open less meaningful.
 
That same trader in solo may then hop into open and use his safely acquired profit to shoot people at random, perhaps the same pirates he was choosing to avoid. It's not like every trader is a peaceful guy who enjoys space trucking. Many people hop modes like this specifically to fund their pvp.

The main issue is people using the mode options to gain an advantage or make the efforts of those who stick to open less meaningful.
But it's not an issue when players wing up or interdict with superiour crafts to gain an advantage to make the efforts of those who trade in open meaningless?
 
Last edited:
Each player chooses, on a session-by-session basis which mode to play in. If players choose not to play in Open, for whatever reason, then that's their choice and their choice alone. None of the game modes is incentivised - each player gets the same reward for the same input. The fact that other players may affect a players effectiveness in Open would seem to be the result of players choosing to play in a game mode where they will affect, and be affected by, other players.

If Open play is a sufficiently attractive to the majority of players then the majority of players may choose to play there - it's up to all players to make Open a good place to play to encourage others to play in it - not for Frontier to incentivise it in some way as they are on record as holding the opinion that all modes are valid and equal.

On paper, sure FD claims that all modes are equal and valid, it seem to hold on a conceptual level. Income are the same, effects are the same, no multipliers of any sort.

But in a practical sense, or from a pragmatic view. One mode is a "independent, closed system," while the other is a "dependent, open system."


Let's discuss the former first. The premise of Solo mode is that a player will never encounter another player. People who make the choice of playing Solo wishes to be left in solitude and completely void of player interaction.

Thus, as long as the condition of the entire playground being composed of nothing but a single player and NPC, the system is closed and independent.



The latter, however, has a large set of premises. Open mode is where player will encounter other players. People who make the choice of playing Open wishes to interact with other players, let it be cooperative or competitive interaction.

However, like legal fine prints, there are a few elements Open mode players must swallow regardless:

First, the Universe is shared between Open mode and Solo mode, meaning that there will be people who no one can see or affect, yet still impact the said Universe.

Second, players have the right to swiftly exit the mode (15 second combat logging or just combat logging in general).

Third, while Open mode players have no way to counter Solo mode players (ex. PP), Solo players may hop onto Open if they choose to do so and affect Open players, unless the Open players exit into their own Solo mode and overwhelm one another with the numbers of people playing in Solo (See how Open players just got converted into Solo players just to compete/have equal footing in PP?).



I think the issue is clear at this point, all modes weren't created equal and valid, and they aren't equal and valid.

People that play Open mode seeking player interaction and wanting to have impact on other players ultimately falls short in the sense that it only affects a selective group of players that have to voluntarily give their consent, which can be revoked nearly instantaneously for player interaction to occur. While Solo mode is complete in the sense that it achieves its purpose of attaining total solitude, Open mode falls very short of its purpose.

Why would anyone play in Open if Solo has such a large benefit (total seclusion while maintaining 100% impact on the Universe), other than one's desperation for human interaction?

And what are they rewarded with? Combat Logging, hacking, congruent reward with players that do not take the same amount of risk, and being told that modes are equal when they are clearly not.

So no, I sincerely disagree with FD's statement. Respecting choices is great, but pretending to respect choices and shoving inequality as equality down people's throats are not so great.
 
Last edited:
That same trader in solo may then hop into open and use his safely acquired profit to shoot people at random, perhaps the same pirates he was choosing to avoid. It's not like every trader is a peaceful guy who enjoys space trucking. Many people hop modes like this specifically to fund their pvp.

The main issue is people using the mode options to gain an advantage or make the efforts of those who stick to open less meaningful.

So what about the player in the wing - who has made their progress in easy wing mode with their mates as back up?

Do they make the efforts of the lone player in open (for example me) less meaningful? Is that "fair" that they get it easy against AI and players because they always have back up?
 
But it's not an issue when players wing up or interdict with superiour crafts to gain an advantage to make the efforts of those who trade in open meaningless?
You mean to perhaps make 1m/hour with great effort compared to the 12m the trader may be making?
It might be an issue but does it make his efforts meaningless? He will survive and most likely still turn a profit.
 
And still many traders get blown up by NPC's so there's no eliminating risk in total in the game. Fair nitpick.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=166663

I'll rephrase accordingly.

Why is it ok for pirates to avoid risk as much as possible, but it's not ok for traders to avoid risk as much as possible?

Keeping in mind the post I replied to: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=167367&page=17&p=2558432&viewfull=1#post2558432

"It's nice to have a choice, isn't it? :)"
"Not when it gives some players the option to avoid risk"

Well there is relativity in play here, if we scale to inexperienced/never touched Open mode players, NPCs are probably the most threatening thing, where Open play players face unimaginable risks. If we scale to Open mode players, then the risk taken by the previously scaled to group seems insignificant. If you call for their intrinsic equivalence, then I would absolutely agree, but one perspective is respected less than another, as I will explain.

Anopheles is entitled to his opinion, I disagree with him in that particular exchange.

Choices are to be respected, but when one infringes upon another, they are not respected.

I just posted a reply to Robert, I'll re-emphasize one choice is respected more than another.
 
You mean to perhaps make 1m/hour with great effort compared to the 12m the trader may be making?
It might be an issue but does it make his efforts meaningless? He will survive and most likely still turn a profit.
And that also goes for the example you posted. The Solo player raking it in in Solo and returning to Open to create havoc is a red herring.
 
You mean to perhaps make 1m/hour with great effort compared to the 12m the trader may be making?
It might be an issue but does it make his efforts meaningless? He will survive and most likely still turn a profit.

You seem to be comparing different trades for earning rates - not different modes.

I'm in open now - doing a 4 stop run of about 10 mill an hour - it wouldn't be any faster in solo - I've only seen one other player and they were in a type 6.
 
Well there is relativity in play here, if we scale to inexperienced/never touched Open mode players, NPCs are probably the most threatening thing, where Open play players face unimaginable risks.
unimaginable?

I play in open, at no point did the risk boggle my imagination.

If we scale to Open mode players, then the risk taken by the previously scaled to group seems insignificant. If you call for their intrinsic equivalence, then I would absolutely agree, but one perspective is respected less than another, as I will explain.

Anopheles is entitled to his opinion, I disagree with him in that particular exchange.

Choices are to be respected, but when one infringes upon another, they are not respected.

I just posted a reply to Robert, I'll re-emphasize one choice is respected more than another.
Before I go on, let me see if I got your position straight.

The choice of a Pirate to avoid risk as much as possible is more justified because the Pirate's bottomline of risk is higher that a trader's bottomline of risk, therefore the trader should not get the optio to reduce risk using the means of going Solo.

Please comment :)
 
Well you guys keep trying to make it about risk.

Risk is entirely dependent on ability, relative ship type and loadout. Many traders run with no shields or light shields and no guns - they are often ridiculed for it. Risky wouldn't you say?

Their risk from AI ships is high - particularly AI wings or high level combat AI - bearing in mind these are not usually combat ready/enabled players.


When I'm in open and I get bounced by a wing the risk certainly isn't on the wing.

And with instancing the way it is it seems highly unlikely that a wing coming is going to come up against another wing - we keep getting told it's broken and wings can't fight other wings.

Is that not true - is at actually working after all?

We bring things back to risk because it is a part of what drives people to play the game. High risk usually provide high reward, people take risks for rewards. Open and Solo mode do not have proper risk vs reward set up.

I just commented on relativity on the previous post and the post before that.

Wing battle can occur as long as the instance has less than 32 players, I believe. I have participated in large scale battles. However, if group A has only 8 players with the other 24 players being from group B, I believe there's a considerable amount of risk.
 
You seem to be comparing different trades for earning rates - not different modes.

I'm in open now - doing a 4 stop run of about 10 mill an hour - it wouldn't be any faster in solo - I've only seen one other player and they were in a type 6.
No I am not comparing trades, I was asking if making slightly less profit due to the odd pirate attack really makes your efforts meaningless.
 
unimaginable?

I play in open, at no point did the risk boggle my imagination.

You may interpret the term to your preferable scale, but I believe you received the point I convey in the sense that if we scale the relativity of risk measurement to the danger a Solo player faces, it is clear that an Open player faces more. (one worries only about AI, the second worries about AI + other players)

Before I go on, let me see if I got your position straight.

The choice of a Pirate to avoid risk as much as possible is more justified because the Pirate's bottomline of risk is higher that a trader's bottomline of risk, therefore the trader should not get the optio to reduce risk using the means of going Solo.

Please comment :)
Again, I stated that I disagree with Anopheles in that particular exchange, therefore I do not believe in robbing people's choices of doing anything. However, the point I made was that if we are to truly respect choices, Open mode players are not being respected for that their choices are dependent while Solo mode players' choices are independent.

No matter how much an Open player reduces one's risk, it will be innately higher than a Solo player.
 
It seems I'm in the Solo vs open vs group Thread. Could swear I clicked on something diffrent!
You're so right. And I myself made a post about this earlier. It's so much easier recognising hypocrisy when recognising it in yourself :)

Happy to continue the discussion in the apropriate thread if there are willing participants.
 
We bring things back to risk because it is a part of what drives people to play the game. High risk usually provide high reward, people take risks for rewards. Open and Solo mode do not have proper risk vs reward set up.

I just commented on relativity on the previous post and the post before that.

Wing battle can occur as long as the instance has less than 32 players, I believe. I have participated in large scale battles. However, if group A has only 8 players with the other 24 players being from group B, I believe there's a considerable amount of risk.

Are you saying that you have seen/participated in 8 v 24 PVP - or are we talking theoretically here? I seem to recall several posts from you in another thread today essentially saying that multiplayer was completely broken.

The problem is we can't agree what is high risk.

I can only go from my own experience but getting jumped by a wing of players seems pretty risky to me.

As does a trader flying a space cow with no shields in solo getting interdicted by AI.

On the contrary I see very little risk of destruction faced by a pirate attacking lesser equipped traders - never mind a wing of pirates.

Where is the high risk in the average player pirate v player trader encounter?

- - - Updated - - -

You're so right. And I myself made a post about this earlier. It's so much easier recognising hypocrisy when recognising it in yourself :)

Happy to continue the discussion in the apropriate thread if there are willing participants.

Tis confusing isn't it?

And they can't merge it co it's a dev thread! :O

:D

ETA - perhaps we should voluntarily "take it outside" - and by that I mean take it to the megathread?
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that you have seen/participated in 8 v 24 PVP - or are we talking theoretically here? I seem to recall several posts from you in another thread today essentially saying that multiplayer was completely broken.

It is, and I stand by my claims. You may go back and read the points I listed and why multiplayer is broken. I have participated in large scale battles, but I do not believe I've seen number exceeding roughly 20 players (Yes I have participated in numerous large scale battles and have people unable to drop in because of the limitation [not even close to 32 and already blocking people out]). The 8 v 24 is a theoretical scenario. I can easily replace it to be 4 vs 16 if you wish for a more realistic account.

The problem is we can't agree what is high risk.

I agree, and we can't really solve that problem since I cannot just forget my Open player experience and do only Solo for a few months to gain something similar to your perspective.


I can only go from my own experience but getting jumped by a wing of players seems pretty risky to me.

As does a trader flying a space cow with no shields in solo getting interdicted by AI.

They are intrinsically risks, that's really all we can say before we argue over perspectives. (Of course you can argue the intrinsic attribute I assigned, but please do that in PM since that is more philosophy I believe)

On the contrary I see very little risk of destruction faced by a pirate attacking lesser equipped traders - never mind a wing of pirates.

Where is the high risk in the average player pirate v player trader encounter?

That is when the bounty hunters (yes, they exist. Considering I have heard one of my crew mate laughing about a "Code hunter" in Lave cluster yesterday and my numerous encounter with them) and the police come in. I'm sure you have read about police reaction time being increased to a quite ridiculous level since 1.3.


Tis confusing isn't it?

And they can't merge it co it's a dev thread! :O
Gotta exploit it! Muhahahaha....

No I'm kidding.

ETA - perhaps we should voluntarily "take it outside" - and by that I mean take it to the megathread?

I say if we really want a fruitful, uninterrupted debate, take it to PM. This way we don't have to worry about sniping and can't find each other's post because 9001 angry, spitting, raging players just coated the thread with disgusting fluids...
 
Last edited:
It is, and I stand by my claims. You may go back and read the points I listed and why multiplayer is broken. I have participated in large scale battles, but I do not believe I've seen number exceeding roughly 20 players. The 8 v 24 is a theoretical scenario. I can easily replace it to be 4 vs 16 if you wish for a more realistic account.



I agree, and we can't really solve that problem since I cannot just forget my Open player experience and do only Solo for a few months to gain something similar to your perspective.




They are intrinsically risks, that's really all we can say before we argue over perspectives. (Of course you can argue the intrinsic attribute I assigned, but please do that in PM since that is more philosophy I believe)



That is when the bounty hunters (yes, they exist. Considering I have heard one of my crew mate laughing about a "Code hunter" in Lave cluster yesterday and my numerous encounter with them) and the police come in. I'm sure you have read about police reaction time being increased to a quite ridiculous level since 1.3.



Gotta exploit it! Muhahahaha....

No I'm kidding.



I say if we really want a fruitful, uninterrupted debate, take it to PM. This way we don't have to worry about sniping and can't find each other's post because 9001 angry, spitting, raging players just coated the thread with disgusting fluids...

I'm going to bow out of this thread now - these superconductors aren't going to deliver themselves you know.

But - I must pick you up on this "since I cannot just forget my Open player experience and do only Solo for a few months to gain something similar to your perspective."

I can see why you may think I'm a soloist but I can assure you I'm 99% open - that's where I earned my creds and what my in game experience is based on.

Catch you in game perhaps - I've run into to some of your colleagues previously - though not for a while...
 
But - I must pick you up on this "since I cannot just forget my Open player experience and do only Solo for a few months to gain something similar to your perspective."

I can see why you may think I'm a soloist but I can assure you I'm 99% open - that's where I earned my creds and what my in game experience is based on.

Catch you in game perhaps - I've run into to some of your colleagues previously - though not for a while...
I apologize for the assumption, then. Hopefully I will run into you, as well.
 
One last act of hypocrisy on my part:
Always wondered, does CODE have a homebase/system?

And I noticed you have a typo in your sig where it should say: "Stardust"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom