Do "purple-haired heroes" scare everyone into Solo?

[Vetinari]

It's a precedent the Elite series and even ED itself generally held to until about 2016. I mean NPCs were always dumb, and their distribution didn't always make sense, but the setting has never described most of inhabited space as being anywhere near as safe as rural Kansas.

Actually you're wrong. in the 1984 BBC version of Elite at least, some systems like Lave were harmless trading points with little chance of pirates and Anarchy were 1-2 waves of 3 pirates per J (speed up time in system) jump

If you argued for the same, harmless safe zones and Anarchy hell holes, Id agree, but it does seem as though you always argue for more hell for noobs and other players and never for more safe zones, especially at CG time? Shouldn't there be hellish CGs and fairly safe CGs, you seem to miss the point of the Wild West analogy that most people tried to make it less wild by setting up towns and areas of 'law'. Isn't that more like real life which is what you claim you want?

I meant it in the sense of 'succeeding'.
You are missing the point, making a non-argument. I am criticising the game design in hope to get a better game in the end. Why do you tell me 'I am not forced to play the game'? Are you telling your partner 'you are not forced to live with me', whenever there is a disagreement?

I am a bit shocked by this. I don't try and restrict my partner in the first place or trap then into the relationship therefore they are free at any time to walk out, not something I want, but not my choice or within my control. My choice is whether to make it a loving caring environment where disagreements can be had but theres room for all and hope that that encourages them to stay, that's what I can do. And if we decide to play paintball we can both blast each other and ambush and attack and trap and manipulate to trap and then just blast away from the vantage point...but then we would stop when the game ends and laugh about it.

 

[Vetinari]

oh and when I read that most BGS players / factions have 2nd account ship full of Cartographics data ready to be used at any point in solo I stopped giving so much credence to the 'attack the solo player who wants to play for fun' argument.

Said it before 'Cheats and Griefers gave Open a bad name, blame them'

Ill add to it, harassing players to play in Open will not yield the results you are looking for, try enticing them.

 

[myothershipisacobraiv]

How do we end up in discussions like this?

Why are there three or four dozen commodities in the game if there isn't a range of hauling activities intended? Just get rid of everything but drugs and weapons if hauling is supposed to be dangerous. What is the point of grain vs. gold?

We shouldn't need to have discussions over something like whether or not trading is supposed to be dangerous.

Now I'm just talking PVE here. For PVP scenarios, any thing gameplay-centric goes out the window until Elite first becomes an actual multiplayer game with more multiplayer-oriented systems for the kind of progression-based single-player style game it is. There is nothing about this game that supports multiplayer as any kind of foundation for anything outside of meta combat spec vs meta combat spec.

Trading balance has no relevance to anything CG because the problems don't start at trading when we're talking Open and multiplayer for anything.

 

[jasonbarron]

I meant it in the sense of 'succeeding'.
You are missing the point, making a non-argument. I am criticising the game design in hope to get a better game in the end. Why do you tell me 'I am not forced to play the game'? Are you telling your partner 'you are not forced to live with me', whenever there is a disagreement?

But if you choose to play in open, which can(!) be a lot more dangerous (for already criticized), and you chose to enter a CG system, it is entirely your choice to go prepared or in a shieldless T-9, which you can't afford the rebuy for.

To stick with you analogy, why do you think it is good, that one mode is delivering TVs to Walmart, while the other mode portraits the same system more like a drug cartel's estate?

It is not a matter of difficulty level in general, it is the difference between two modes of the same game world. Where in one you fly shieldless to your destination making maximum profit, where your biggest fear is to scratch the paint while docking. In the other mode you can literally die within 5 seconds, while being in the exact same place.
I don't want to neither judge open, PvE, PvP or a general difficulty level in my statements.


It is not much of an opinion, if the game lore itself presents a grim, unforgiving galaxy. You should read the books by Drew.

You are arguing with (and I agree with you) people who bluntly put do not want this game to either improve on a mechanical level OR be a level playing field for all players. Frontier has decided that it would take too much effort to do anything other than cater to this low expectation crowd who is happily burrowed into group/solo like a tick on a dog and slowly milk them while putting the bulk of their efforts into more lucrative (and less controversial) endeavors. Those of us who wanted a fair playing field and an experience with some meat on its bones lost, simple as that.

 

[jasonbarron]

It's easy to say "The game is too easy" for those who have been playing it for years and years, but would any of you made it this far to begin with if the game had been as hard on everyone (including Harmless noobs learning how to fly) from day one? Even more challenging games like Dragons Dogma (never played Souls so I can't comment there) don't pit you against the final boss on day one (or even day seven), and there's nothing stopping my level 200 character from revisiting the "easy" areas and smashing goblins with zero risk to myself.

I just wonder if Mostly Harmless Morbad from years past would be as happy to play the game that Elite Forever Morbad wishes upon us all....

It's all academic anyway, the game we have is the game we have, and I for one enjoy hauling TVs from California to Kansas, at least on occasion.

No one is advocating that new players be pitted against engineered wings of Elite Anaconda's.

 

[Mohrgan]

The playing field is leveled through the mechanism of access. Every player has the exact same access to the entire game. Make your own decisions on how to utilize that access. The mechanics of the BGS and PP are blind to which mode you are in. By design. It is all done via filling PvE buckets. Those buckets are exactly the same no matter which environment you use. What is mostly asked for by the PvP Crowd is to insist that the playing field is one of their choosing.

Play the game how you like, I and I will do the same. An idea not hard to get behind.

 

[jasonbarron]

Calling ease of access "fair" doesn't work for me. It's only considered so by people who primarily use the alternate modes, but objectively speaking it's not fair at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Calling ease of access "fair" doesn't work for me. It's only considered so by people who primarily use the alternate modes, but objectively speaking it's not fair at all.

In a game that has been designed around the principle of letting players play how they want (rather than other players being able to demand that they play in a certain way), it's "fair".

"fair" is not measured against the yardstick of the optional play-style that is PvP, after all.

 

[Mohrgan]

Calling ease of access "fair" doesn't work for me. It's only considered so by people who primarily use the alternate modes, but objectively speaking it's not fair at all.

So what? The rules are the rules. Fill them buckets, or go home. How about we each get to have our own vision of fairness? It's a lot like: You play your way, and I'll be sure to do the same.

 

[jasonbarron]

Thanks for confirming my theory from post #712, gents.

 

[Old Duck]

No one is advocating that new players be pitted against engineered wings of Elite Anaconda's.

Until recently, that was the case in Open. Even these new starter systems don't really address the huge gap between new players and multi-year veterans.

I was actually wondering the other day why instancing doesn't take this into account. I was finding myself either in an instance overfilled with players (supercruise being saturated with dozens of purple-haired fishermen) or instances that were almost empty, depending on the roll of the dice. In these scenarios, and I'm basically talking about hotspots like CGs and engineering bases, I think it would be nice if a little bit of matchmaking logic was programmed into the instancing algorithm, so that Harmless to Competent CMDRs are instanced together separate from Master to Deadly CMDRs, and maybe all you Elite CMDRs can have your own special instance, LOL.

I don't actually expect this to happen, and I'm sure some in this thread would hate that, but I personally think it would help balance the game while also giving players what they want - a challenge.

 

[Mohrgan]

Thanks for confirming my theory from post #712, gents.

Not suprizingly, you only accept the type of 'fairness', that enforces your preferences. It's pretty transparent. You're going to insist on your vision of fairness, rather than adapt to the reality of the situation.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thanks for confirming my theory from post #712, gents.

Not confirming at all - however it can be observed that, given the available information published long ago, that this was never going to be the game that would provide the experience sought by a particular subset of the player-base.

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

While I’m all for people using the modes they want, I’m part of the ‘be a sport and use open for power play/BGS’ camp.

In the rare event I’m helping tank someone’s BGS, I feel they deserve a chance to at least take a few shots at me while I do so. Because of the adversarial nature of power play, it makes sense to do the same.

Powerplay, as it stands today, is mostly used for special parts. Look at all of those systems that are 1000% beyond their fortification goals lol.

It’s like a crappy cargo run with little reward, and depending on what mode you’re in, no risk at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

While I’m all for people using the modes they want, I’m part of the ‘be a sport and use open for power play/BGS’ camp.

In the rare event I’m helping tank someone’s BGS, I feel they deserve a chance to at least take a few shots at me while I do so. Because of the adversarial nature of power play, it makes sense to do the same.

.... and it is the decision of each player how to engage with the BGS and Powerplay. Some may be open to the possibility of PvP, some may eschew PvP in any and all circumstances - both get to play the game how they want to (but can't force others to play their way).

 

[babelfisch]

You are arguing with (and I agree with you) people who bluntly put do not want this game to either improve on a mechanical level OR be a level playing field for all players.

Wrong. Some people just don't like to play with you.

Frontier has decided that it would take too much effort to do anything other than cater to this low expectation crowd who is happily burrowed into group/solo like a tick on a dog and slowly milk them while putting the bulk of their efforts into more lucrative (and less controversial) endeavors.

Wrong. Frontier just realises that some people don't want to play with you.

Those of us who wanted a fair playing field and an experience with some meat on its bones lost, simple as that.

Correct. You are free to move on to a game that is designed for direct competitive gameplay. Or you can continue to try changing the game how it was sold to us, which is a bit pointless.

 

[jasonbarron]

Not suprizingly, you only accept the type of 'fairness', that enforces your preferences. It's pretty transparent. You're going to insist on your vision of fairness, rather than adapt to the reality of the situation.

My concept of fairness is actually based on...wait for it....wait for it....FAIRNESS. Fairness in the context of a competitive multiplayer game where we all share the same simulation is a mode we all participate together in regardless of playstyle. The reality of the situation is that we have a competitive multiplayer game that allows players to carry out competitive agenda's effecting all parts of the sim and all players while never being seen by these other players. You can rightly claim "that's the way it is" because that is the way it is, but that doesn't make it fair. Claiming that's fair, objectively speaking, is a pathetic joke.

 

[Vetinari]

'be a sport' - agreed as long as it is a choice, its more like, rank up and tank up and then you can be a sport, otherwise if you are a genuine noob and not a 2nd account you probably wont survive to get the FSD from Felicity or get anywhere at all really

BGS - not everyone is playing BGS or RP. Some are just explorers who want to sell their data and happen into someone else's 'wrong' system without ever knowing it, they don't want more danger before they sell it, well I don't, I cant speak for everyone of course. I usually use it to rank up with various factions, never consider BGS to be honest at that point, just my game and whats in my interests.

 

[Wendake]

I'm still of the belief that a GOOD answer is making high-security systems be very safe and anarchy systems to be very dangerous, so that any CMDR wanting to do business with in an anarchy better think twice before flying a "paper airplane", whereas any griefer best think twice before interdicting said paper ships in a hi-sec (and perhaps hi-sec implement a new interdiction dampening field that makes this impossible to begin with).

You make a point here. Security level in ED is clearly not working and should have way more impacts - actually I don't bother at all with security level because it doesn't affect me.

I played a few months to Eve Online and the security level of each system was really affecting your travel choices.

When you enter a system in anarchy no matter if you are in solo or open you should be scared and in danger. It should also affect incomes when trading - higher the risks : higher the payout.

On the other hand a high security system should be scary for pirates and a safe-zone for traders.

There is so much things that are unbalanced in this game ... I still don't understand why 2 of the less dangerous activites (mining and exploration) are the ones offering the highest payouts...trading and bounty hunting being far behind.

 

[Stigbob]

You are arguing with (and I agree with you) people who bluntly put do not want this game to either improve on a mechanical level OR be a level playing field for all players. Frontier has decided that it would take too much effort to do anything other than cater to this low expectation crowd who is happily burrowed into group/solo like a tick on a dog and slowly milk them while putting the bulk of their efforts into more lucrative (and less controversial) endeavors. Those of us who wanted a fair playing field and an experience with some meat on its bones lost, simple as that.

You make your own ship and outfitting choices. If you find that results in an unbalanced/unfun game rethink your loadout, that's what I do in PVE when it gets too easy.