General Several Suggestions for ELITE, long text

[TEBORI]

if the blocking must include instance blocking cause players dont want to get in contact with some pilots it should be at least split.
blocking level 1: no messages at all from this player
level 2: full block no messages and no instancing possible.

 

[Vitold]

Well, if FD do not want to do the pp/bgs only Open, then cancel private groups entirely. If you want to fly with a wing - welcome to open, do not want to see anyone, play solo.

 

[TEBORI]

this will not work. folks payd for using the game as it is. i dont think frontier can dare to delete some features which were built in the game.
we dont have to forget that a small minority of the total players are playing in open atm.

 

[DemonCrucible]

Great ideas mate, I hope Frontier takes these suggestions soon.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, if FD do not want to do the pp/bgs only Open, then cancel private groups entirely. If you want to fly with a wing - welcome to open, do not want to see anyone, play solo.

That would be rather capricious - there's no need to remove one of the three game modes that were announced at the same time over seven years ago, in a game where PvP is an entirely optional extra.

.... bearing in mind that every single player that either backed or bought the game did so on the basis of three game modes, between which players can switch at will, that all affect a single shared BGS.

 

[dezpe]

Thanks for all the effort Fuego. I really like your ideas. I would love to see all of them implemented. Would make life eaaally hard for an outlaw and murderous idiot like me, but I would embrace the challenge.

I am pretty pessimistic about FDEV implementing those things sadly. They seem to focus all of their attention towards the younger and PvE playerbase who are A) bringing more cash, B) are less demanding, C) are many, many more than us OPEN players and D) seem to be less interested in PvP combat.

A big hurdle for those PvErs who stay in SOLO/PRIVATE is the huge gap in skill and equipment. A G5 maxed engineered ship is just so much better than a G3 one, let alone a stock ship. The survivability of someone logging into OPEN for the first time, unexperienced and underequipped is just laughable. Fdev needs to do some re-balancing between engineering mods and bring stock and lower grade ships closer to g5s. This could theoretically be done by changing some performance values of critical modules like distributors, engines, shields and shield boosters.

And sometimes I feel like FDEV really does not want to have so many players in OPEN because just how poorly the netcode works in the current stage of the game. You said it yourself: At more than 8 players in one instance things get funny. It is really sad. Motivating or even forcing players into OPEN with some of your changes would actually go against FDEVs interest to keep those issues below the radar of so many CMDRs.

I don't know what hope there is regarding the news announcement of rewriting the base code of the game. There is one truth however: Hope dies last.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

After being a long time thinking about these Ideas, I am going to explan them here, separed by categories. Most of them are adressed to improve and promote player-player interactions.

It´s a long text, I hope FDEV reads it and of course anyone who read this thread can ping me or PM and suggest.

- BGS and powerplay.
1- Make BGS and powerplay open only. My suggestion is every nav data, mission, bounty, powerplay brochures, powerplay point, commodities, whatever, made in OPEN should be the only one to be able to have any influence in BGS/ powerplay. The way I would do this is these items should be marked as "OPEN ITEMS" and in the very moment you change to SOLO/PG, these items would be marked as "NO-OPEN ITEMS" (or something similar) even if you go back to Open. This way new players that play only in SOLO/PG could be capable of gain reputation with a powerplay to obtain a weapon, or with a minor faction, earn money making missions, etc, but without having influence in the galaxy.

The BGS makes no sense to be open only. It is a predominantly PvE experience with optional PvP. Powerplay in its current guise I can see going open only. I would prefer if Powerplay became a major part of the BGS and also became predominantly PvE with optional PvP.

2- Donation missions should require donate the money and them fly to another base to end the mission, this way a ship in open could not move the BGS just sitting in a station and spending money without risk.

Why? Everyone has the same mission options. The odds are even.

3- More rewards for BGS. At the moment the BGS apart from seeing % rising in your favourite faction does not give anything for the players. BGS could be more dynamic and active if players in a squadron making BGS for his faction, could get a reward based on the amount of population the faction controls at the end of a week, month, etc. It could be money, materials, extra ARX, special decals, or even engineered modules. Also the possibility of changing name bases, etc. Maybe for POWERPLAY a similar reward system could be implemented.

Some rewards for your dedication to your chosen faction would be fine.

- Crime and Punishment, security.
1- Let´s be real. Security system in this game is a joke. This should change specially in high security systems. High security systems police should have full wings of engineered NPC´s ships, piloted by clever IA pilots who should make every criminal think two times before killing another commander for no reason, and they should come quickly, 10 seconds or something like that, not 1 and a half minute. Also a wanted pilot who enters in a high security system should be interdicted by this forces one time after another. This way also anarchy systems would be a thing in BGS level to stablish "safe" places for outlaws.

Agreed.

2- No wanted pilot should be able to land in a base he is wanted. I have seen several times people killing new commanders in Felicity Farseer, and them land in the base to reload shield. In the very moment you get near of a base you are wanted, the base should try to blow you in pieces, that´s all. I also have seen pilots wanted landing in orbital bases, and doing the same, that does not have any logic.

I don't believe that you can land at a station you are wanted from. Engineers are different though as they are not part of the factions system.

3- When a commander reach level 4 (or less, it´s a suggestion) of notoriety, reached for example killing NPC´s other players, etc, it´s forced to play in open until he reaches notoriety 1 or so again. Also notoriety should be only reducid playing and flying REALLY in open, not sitting in a station and just waiting.

No. Anything that forces you to play in another mode is a big no apart from maybe powerplay in its current form.

4- When a commander has made a lot of crimes repeatedly (again some notoriety level), should has a "marker" that other commanders could see in the galaxy map. Some kind of marker or list of wanted commanders online in that moment and in the system. Also in, for example, in medium and high security systems. If a wanted commander is even out of supercruise, if another commander go nearer than, for example, 100 LS, it could appear a signal revealing a wanted commander is there, so bounty hunters could track him. As this signal does not appear in low and anarcky systems, again some systems could be used as safe place.

Don't see the point and doesn't make much sense. Why would a career criminal have a big marker on his back saying where he is all the time.

5- Remove the 2 millions limit for bountys. Ok, I know this was limited to avoid people passing credits to another player letting him to be killed, but it´s not fair if a kill a wanted commander, who has let´s suppose 100 million bounty, I only get 2 million. I could get for example 50% of the bounty, (or 60%, whatever). The typical FDL has a rebuy of about ten million, so the bounty hunter / enforcer proffesion would be much more lucrative if bounty limits are modified, and of course it would improve interaction between outlaws and lawfuls.

Maybe. It's in to stop exploits.

- CG´s and interestellar Initiatives
1- In some way the developers should actively participate in CG´s, with a ship marked clearly as piloted by a developer (or someone contracted for that). Of course the pilot has to be a experienced pilot and the ship should be fully engineered. Interacting with these pilots could have any special reward for who do this. Also this way the developers would be much near of the community.

Don't see the point

2- CG´s open only. In the very moment you sign in at least one or more CG´s, interestellar initiatives or whatever, you are instantly changed to open and can´t change to solo/PG until all the CG´s you are signed are ended. CG´s should make people connect and interact.

No. No CG should be open only.

- Economy
1- The economy should be more dinamic, both local system and also galaxy system. We have seen in the last months miners are flooding the bubble with opals and diamonds, but the prices are the same. This have made now in the game any new commander can make billions in the first week of play. I am not telling we have to go back to the first years of game where making money was extremely difficult, but I think now is unbalanced. In a real economy system, the vast increase in offer should have made the prices of these items to drop quickly, so people should have moved to trade / mine other items to make money. A dinamic economy system should take into account the offer and demand, so the trader proffession would be much more interesting, because traders would have to invest time looking prices, demand, and also planning routes, trying to avoid low and anarchy systems for example. And probably pirate commanders for example would also study these routes to pirate the traders, increasing again player interaction.

Yup, it should be more dynamic.

- Player interacting mechanics
1- Mechanics to make player be able to trade between them in stations, or for example missions created in game by players, for other players. For example escort missions, bounty hunting missions, etc. Let´s suppose I create a mission to escort me and my gold fitted type 9 to reach my favourite station. I can create the mission, offer 10 millions, and then in the very moment I create the mission the money is taken from my credits, and then my player escort get´s the money when we together reach the destiny. This kind of things would dramatically increase life in the game and player interaction. etc. An important point is the amount to be paid in this missions should have any limit to avoid people paying too much, to exploit it and passing money to another account, etc.

Not bothered by this at all.

2- Rewards for people who only plays open. Apart from the point I explained before about BGS and POWERPLAY, every "OPEN ONLY" item sold, delivered, etc, could have 10% (or 20%, whatever) reward because in theory you are risking more. Even if you are not trying to move any BGS or something, any commander who mine some silver, gold, whatever, in open, and after a risky (and exciting) travel to the selling point, should have any extra reward if he does it in open all the time.

Ere, no. How about rewards for people that play in solo only or a private group only. That's just wrong.

- Thargoids
1- With thargoids we have passed from 100 to 0. At the beggining of this year thargoids were invading more and more systems everyday and all the people involved in Xenowar could do absolutely nothing, and then after some adjustment FDEV made, the situation changed totally from one day to another. About 6 or seven systems were cleaned everyday and now the thargoids are not a real threat.

That depends on how good you are.

2- Systems with thargoid presence. Ok, in theory a system with thargoids around should be very dangerous. Actually if I go to a system invaded by thargoids, I am only in danger if I drop into a nonhuman signal. I would like to be in real danger in the very moment I reach a thargoid invaded system. Agressive hyperdictions, and of course thargoids pulling me out of supercruise and attacking me in those systems.

Thargoids don't use supercruise so can't pull you out. Aggressive hyperdictions could be interesting though.

3- Thargoid friends. There are commanders who thinks thargoids are friends for them. Ok, then they should receive tools for that. Maybe after "aligning" as Thargoids friends, they would only be able to go into a smal bunch of systems where minor factions are alse thargoids friends (or maybe a new thargoid friend powerplay), because in any other they will be seen as enemies of mankind and attacked all the time, but at the same time Thargoids would not attack them. Once you align in game as thargoid friend you have to stay aligned for a month at least, for example. Therefore people couldn´t not change everyday to mess other players and then appear as lawfuls the day after. Also if you on purpose attack a commander who is in combat against a Thargoid, maybe he will be forced to be "thargoid friendly".

Being a Thargoid ally may not be possible.

- New ships
1- we want new ships, and original please, not only variatios from existing ships. Also the imperials have the cutter, the federals have the corvette, but the alliance have not a proper big PVP ship. Maybe FDEV after a CG could develop a big ship, based on the challenger or the chieftiain, but bigger, with more shields, armor, weapons, etc, and af course slower.

There are no PvP ships, just ships. The alliance can use the Anaconda.

2- Also, incredibly the empire does not have a medium combat ship. The only thing more or less alike is the clipper but the hardpoints are not suitable to use fixed weapons.

This I agree with, Empire could do with a medium ship of some kind.

3- A new and really big transport ship. I don´t know if FDEV is making this or not, but I would like to have a new transport ship, so big it has to dock out of orbital station in a special platform or something. With a max cargo capacity of about 2.500 tons, etc.

Possibly. We are getting fleet carriers at some point.

- Rebuy insurance
1- I think the rebuy insurance should change the price based on the player experience. Now is 5% of the ship price, no matter if you are a total noob or Elite. I suggest something like 2% at the beginning of the game, and a figure about 30% when you are Elite in something (Trade, exploring or combat). This way veteran players, with a lot of money would have more risk and also things would be more balanced, specially for people who has 20 billions, for them a rebuy is nothing. With this system things would change and would be more exciting.

Not sure that is the way to go.

- Instancing.
1- I am not a programmer of course, but everybody knows the instances start to fail when there are more than 8 (sometime less) people in the same instance. I could give a lot of examples, everybody who play in open has had issues with this.

I've been lucky. Instancing has never been an issue for me when I play with others.

- Blocking feature
1- In this moment the blocking feature blocks communication from whatever commander, but the game also tries to prevent you instancing with the commander. I thing the blocking mechanic should block communications only.

And that's perfectly fine. Leave as is.

Well, this is more or less what I have been thinking and also hearing from other commanders in the last month. I know some of the mechanincs maybe can not be implemented now, but anyway I suggest it.

Of course any commander can tell me and add whatever they think.

Regards.

I like some of your ideas, but you others are a big no.

 

[lenna]

Not another PvP-centric and Open Only brain crash thread - short version: No.

Long version - lets deep-six threads like this.

 

[AveCandido]

Open history again because bla bla bla and the Solo and Private Group ... Bla bla bla
But, how many times are we going to tell Frontier that one way of playing is better than another, hiding in game mechanics .... The galaxy is big and there is room for the three game modes

 

[TEBORI]

this thread is much more then only open only mode

 

[Fuego Estelar]

Not another PvP-centric and Open Only brain crash thread - short version: No.

Long version - lets deep-six threads like this.

Open history again because bla bla bla and the Solo and Private Group ... Bla bla bla
But, how many times are we going to tell Frontier that one way of playing is better than another, hiding in game mechanics .... The galaxy is big and there is room for the three game modes

My suggestion is not centered in telling open is better than solo/pg etc, is centered, apart from other things, in giving people who plays in open some benefits, so the interaction between players is encouraged. At this moment flying in open does not give any benefit, and a lot of people like me think that´s not fair.

I have never told in any part of the post to remove solo or PG, so please read it again.


Regards.

 

[Robert Maynard]

My suggestion is not centered in telling open is better than solo/pg etc, is centered, apart from other things, in giving people who plays in open some benefits, so the interaction between players is encouraged. At this moment flying in open does not give any benefit, and a lot of people like me think that´s not fair.

I have never told in any part of the post to remove solo or PG, so please read it again.


Regards.

The OP seeks to take away what can be considered to be the biggest part of the game from players in Solo and Private Groups.

.... in a game sold to all as offering each player the opportunity to both experience and affect the single shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode - and where PvP is entirely optional.

 

[Klarg]

Well, if FD do not want to do the pp/bgs only Open, then cancel private groups entirely. If you want to fly with a wing - welcome to open, do not want to see anyone, play solo.

That makes no sense

My suggestion is not centered in telling open is better than solo/pg etc, is centered, apart from other things, in giving people who plays in open some benefits, so the interaction between players is encouraged. At this moment flying in open does not give any benefit, and a lot of people like me think that´s not fair.

I have never told in any part of the post to remove solo or PG, so please read it again.


Regards.

Why should you be rewarded for flying in open? Why should there be a benefit? Right now, it IS fair. Rewarding one mode over another, now that would actually be unfair.

The real benefit is the friends you made on the way :|

 

[Fuego Estelar]

That makes no sense

Why should you be rewarded for flying in open? Why should there be a benefit? Right now, it IS fair. Rewarding one mode over another, now that would actually be unfair.

The real benefit is the friends you made on the way :|

I think it should be rewarded because, specially in "hotspots", is much more dangerous.
A trader who enters in a CG in open will probably be interdicted and attacked by human pirates, on the other hand, in solo he won´t be attacked, or if he is attacked, it will be by an NPC pirate. The first option is more likely to be forced to scape, fight or be destroyed.
NPC pirates probably won´t be able even to interdict him properly, so in my honest opinion the game should reward people who take more risks.


regards

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

\o/ open only all the things; ban solo and pg players.

 

[Slange Lands]

The OP seeks to take away what can be considered to be the biggest part of the game from players in Solo and Private Groups.

.... in a game sold to all as offering each player the opportunity to both experience and affect the single shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode - and where PvP is entirely optional.

As a former Solo mode only player I can very much sympathize with the above statement. However, as a Pvper, I also deeply empathize with the OP. Some comments:

1. We PvPers must come to terms with the fact that many Commanders will want to secure advantages in as much safety as possible. Many Commanders would not have even purchased Elite Dangerous if there was even the slightest hint of non-optional PvP involved. RL has more than enough human PvP and many people play games to escape and distract themselves from precisely the stresses of human interaction.

2. Although Elite Dangerous was perhaps intended as mostly single player with an optional multiplayer element, the fact is, is that video games are not static entities and experience evolutions of their own. Throughout history we have been constantly surprised by the effects of causes. In other words, a given cause may have very unforseen effects. I am sure Fdev has been surprised, pleasantly or not, by what their game, as was first envisioned, has become.

What is best for the longevity of Elite Dangerous?
What is best for the game in the long run may not always be what is best for the short run... And there will always be arguments as to what is in Elite Dangerous' best interest. In the real world, where only change is permanent, I think it would be naive for Frontier Developments to not change Elite in response to technological advances and changing cultural mores. For the longevity of Elite Dangerous, more meaningful, attractive (relatively safe, too!) and practical ways of Commanders working/playing with each other is vital. Yes, one can add more hand placed objects and stories in Elite Dangerous to discover, but epic experiences usually involve conflict. Star Wars, Star Trek, and The Lord of the Rings would not be of much interest without living and believable bad PvP guys like Darth Vader, the Borg or Sauron. No current AI will sustain a human's interest indefinitely. I believe the unpredictability and creativity of actual human player input and interaction is what will ultimately enliven, evolve, and sustain the game.

o7

 

[Linnunrata]

Star Wars, Star Trek, and The Lord of the Rings would not be of much interest without living and believable bad PvP guys like Darth Vader, the Borg or Sauron.

I'm kinda guessing The Lord of the Rings would be less popular if the filthy hobbitses were ganked by overleveled murderhobo-Sauron already in Bree (who didn't really do it for the ring but for the lulz). How unfortunate that Aragorn was in the other instance.

But seriously speaking, I think the essential core problem here is that bad PvP guys in multiplayer online games are seldomly very believable or storywise contributive.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Many Commanders would not have even purchased Elite Dangerous if there was even the slightest hint of non-optional PvP involved.

More than that - many backers may not have backed the Kickstarter if the game contained non-optional PvP - in which case there likely wouldn't be a game to be discussing.

I strongly suspect that the game gained sufficient backing because of, rather than in spite of, the three game modes / single shared galaxy state design upon which it is based.

 

[Klarg]

I think it should be rewarded because, specially in "hotspots", is much more dangerous.
A trader who enters in a CG in open will probably be interdicted and attacked by human pirates, on the other hand, in solo he won´t be attacked, or if he is attacked, it will be by an NPC pirate. The first option is more likely to be forced to scape, fight or be destroyed.
NPC pirates probably won´t be able even to interdict him properly, so in my honest opinion the game should reward people who take more risks.


regards

The increased danger is the reward. As is the likelihood of non pvp interactions with other cmdrs. But that was not your suggestion. Your suggestion was open only bgs. So you want to take away a large part of the game from a large portion of the playerbase for some reason of your own. That's not okay and it sullies the rest of your points.

Edit: anyway, thats my thoughts. I'll shut up now

 

[dezpe]

The reason why flying in OPEN should be rewarded is because of a fundamental principle:

Greater risk - Greater reward.

This principle is important to motivate players to keep on playing.

Why are you able to earn 250 Million Credits per Hour by chilling between the rocks mining Painite, but bringing down the most dangerous CMDRs nets you 2 Million because of a senseless cap? Does not make any sense, sorry.