Modes Open mode balancing proposal

[Robert Maynard]

There is no choice yet to put yourself in danger of being farmed or farm other players.

There is a choice - play in Open rather than Solo / Private Groups.

 

[seko]

This has nothing to do with "communism" or any other political affiliation.

This is a computer game people paid for, with their own money - who do not have to do as you say or want.
You didn't buy my game, I did - and I'll play it how I want, because that is how Frontier made it.

If you are so eager to play with me, I charge £35 per hour (1 hour minimum charge) - otherwise, I'll play where I like.

Also, players are not there to be "farmed" unless they want to play that way - you are not the only person with freedom of choice.

PvP moaners, bleat on like another group of 'remoaners', I could mention

 

[Jockey79]

There is no choice yet to put yourself in danger of being farmed or farm other players. As neither of this pays you anything. And why do you oppose adding it? It is not like you will have to participate in either.

You do have a choice, a choice if you want to play with others (and everything that entails), a choice to play with only a select few, or a choice to play alone.

The game is full of choices. You don't need Frontier to tell you you're a special snowflake if you choose open mode.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

You do have a choice, a choice if you want to play with others (and everything that entails), a choice to play with only a select few, or a choice to play alone.

The game is full of choices. You don't need Frontier to tell you you're a special snowflake if you choose open mode.

This choice does not work as intended apparently, as it is rather naive to just forget about psychology.
It is either you are playing PvE, or you have to boardhop on the grand scale. And that should be fixed.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You do have a choice, a choice if you want to play with others (and everything that entails), a choice to play with only a select few, or a choice to play alone.

The game is full of choices. You don't need Frontier to tell you you're a special snowflake if you choose open mode.

Indeed Frontier don't, those who play Open tell me it's great playing Open. They get the thrill of unexpected encounters, they enjoy the challenge, enjoy facing of against other CMDRs, and good for them. They are enjoying the mode the way it's intended and they are rewarded with the biggest reward a game could provide: fun.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Indeed Frontier don't, those who play Open tell me it's great playing Open. They get the thrill of unexpected encounters, they enjoy the challenge, enjoy facing of against other CMDRs, and good for them. They are enjoying the mode the way it's intended and they are rewarded with the biggest reward a game could provide: fun.

Goals are fun as well. I say again: no one would be using money exploits if you were remotely right.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This choice does not work as intended apparently, as it is rather naive to just forget about psychology.
It is either you are playing PvE, or you have to boardhop on the grand scale. And that should be fixed.

How so?

Each player can choose how they want to play and whether they want to play among other players every single time they start the game.

Board-hopping is not mandatory either.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I say again: no one would be using money exploits if you were remotely right.

And I say that is a false baseless statement irrelevant to my point.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

How so?

Each player can choose how they want to play and whether they want to play among other players every single time they start the game.

Board-hopping is not mandatory either.

Then again: why do you oppose adding more optional stuff which would involve PvP encounters which would pay?

And I say that is a false baseless statement irrelevant to my point.

How the hell it is irrelevant....

Anaconda is completely the same regardless in which mode and how you will get it.
Especially given the fact that said vessel is by no means final goal for this game.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How the hell it is irrelevant....

Because it's unrelated to the point I made.

I'm glad we agree it was false and baseless though.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then again: why do you oppose adding more optional stuff which would involve PvP encounters which would pay?

I don't oppose additional reward for actually encountering a player that poses a credible hazard - I oppose a blanket bonus simply for selecting one of the three game modes.

The devil's in the detail though - as any player encounter that is meant to be confrontational can suffer from collusion between players.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Because it's unrelated to the point I made.

I'm glad we agree it was false and baseless though.

How come it is unrelated when game gives you simple ways to get to your goal with lesser risk while sacrificing your experience?

I don't oppose additional reward for actually encountering a player that poses a credible hazard - I oppose a blanket bonus simply for selecting one of the three game modes.

The devil's in the detail though - as any player encounter that is meant to be confrontational can suffer from collusion between players.

The point of doing anything in the Open is to evade the danger. So about any system without the blanket bonus, no matter how low, will punish the player.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The point of doing anything in the Open is to evade the danger. So about any system without the blanket bonus, no matter how low, will punish the player.

If no players are encountered, how is the player punished?

 

[Jockey79]

..... no one would be using money exploits if you were remotely right.

Yes they would.


Credits are not hard to get in Elite, yet despite that people use cheats and exploits - it's part of the human condition.
Prisons are full of people who don't do thing honestly. How much easier is it to throw "morals" away in game, if people do it in life?

Some of your own PvP complainer friends use credit exploits despite claiming to have billions.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

If no players are encountered, how is the player punished?

So you wanna tell that construction workers are paid more for high-altitude works for each instance of them falling off?

Yes they would.


Credits are not hard to get in Elite, yet despite that people use cheats and exploits - it's part of the human condition.
Prisons are full of people who don't do thing honestly. How much easier is it to throw "morals" away in game, if people do it in life?

Some of your own PvP complainer friends use credit exploits despite claiming to have billions.

There is no morals appliable to your game experience. You gain nothing by chaining yourself to some sort of busido code. Yet game allows you to sacrifice some of it, while fdev is deliberately fixing all money exploits.

It is even funny. I propose optional higher pay for Open mode. You object by saying that higher pay will force you into Open mode.
So Open players are not forced to Solo by possibility of negative pay? Is it hypocrisy?

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you wanna tell that construction workers are paid more for high-altitude works for each instance they fall off?

Hazard pay is indeed a thing - and construction workers that actually work at height will probably get paid more for actually working at height.

How that compares to playing in Open where one might, or might not, encounter another player is not clear.

 

[Han_Zen]

If no players are encountered, how is the player punished?

Reduced cargo capacity and jump range are the results of building a 'safe for open' trade ship. The ship will not get more efficient, by not encountering another player. The price is already payed.

The theoretical and practical maximum amount of damage you can receive before you have time to wake out, is significantly higher in Open. This is of course a result of imbalance between players and NPCs, and not directly related to the modes. Indirectly it does however make progress slower i open.

I agree with you that an open bonus is not the way to go. It's a bitt like giving access to far to strong shields and then 'fixing' the problem with anti shield special effects.

Making the modes equal in efficiency would be a better approach. Then the modes would be to chose your preferred type of social interaction and not a speed dial for progress.
I think that was the design idea?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Reduced cargo capacity and jump range are the results of building a 'safe for open' trade ship. The ship will not get more efficient, by not encountering another player. The price is already payed.

The theoretical and practical maximum amount of damage you can receive before you have time to wake out, is significantly higher in Open. This is of course a result of imbalance between players and NPCs, and not directly related to the modes. Indirectly it does however make progress slower i open.

I agree with you that an open bonus is not the way to go. It's a bitt like giving access to far to strong shields and then 'fixing' the problem with anti shield special effects.

Making the modes equal in efficiency would be a better approach. Then the modes would be to chose your preferred type of social interaction and not a speed dial for progress.
I think that was the design idea?

On top of that you have only NPCs in solo vs those same NPCs combined with pvp min maxed cmdrs, that sometimes all attack you at the same time.

 

[Jockey79]

There is no morals appliable to your game experience. You gain nothing by chaining yourself to some sort of busido code. Yet game allows you to sacrifice some of it, while fdev is deliberately fixing all money exploits.

It is even funny. I propose optional higher pay for Open mode. You object by saying that higher pay will force you into Open mode.
So Open players are not forced to Solo by possibility of negative pay? Is it hypocrisy ?

At the moment I play in open, earning exactly the same as I would do in Solo or in a Private Group.
So there is no "negative pay" to playing open.

I've been in Open mode for a month, in a busy area, in an unarmed passenger ship.
I have been completely safe the whole time.

You don't need more money for playing open. It's perfectly safe.
You are not forced in to playing Solo - that is your choice, not mine.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

At the moment I play in open, earning exactly the same as I would do in Solo or in a Private Group.
So there is no "negative pay" to playing open.

I've been in Open mode for a month, in a busy area, in an unarmed passenger ship.
I have been completely safe the whole time.

You don't need more money for playing open. It's perfectly safe.
You are not forced in to playing Solo - that is your choice, not mine.

Ah, yes. Block functionality. Or router magic. Another way of making your experience PvE one instead of just going Solo.

So it is hypocrisy then?

Hazard pay is indeed a thing - and construction workers that actually work at height will probably get paid more for actually working at height.

How that compares to playing in Open where one might, or might not, encounter another player is not clear.

So risk premiums are withdrawed when said construction worker never falls off?
Doing your stuff in Open is exactly high-altitude work. And I am talking about risk premiums exactly.
Other modes unavaliable will remove it as a board-hopping introduction for Solo players.