Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Ian Skippy]

So based on content not here and your measly two decades of online experience. I'm at three decades so I win.

Your decision to hand waive my points and assume I'm close minded puts you on the people not worth talking to list. Have a nice day with your presuppositions.

Lol, no. You made assumptions about me that were wrong, and I pointed that out. And no, I am again not talking about my experience, just like I wasn't talking about my preference. The fact that you still don't grasp the concept of it indeed shows you are not able to take other perspectives easily. Enjoy the safe space though, a sure sign you are super open-minded! Maybe ask FD for a Solo forum?

This kind of blatant disregard for other people's identity and values is what leads to most of our real world conflict. It literally kills people.

Literally.

Congratulations to all, we managed to get to the 'literal real world horrors' after only 25 pages and while completely bypassing Steam Charts!

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Wow!

Right there, you just advocated for two levels of value for players, actual humans. Those like you whose desires should be addressed, and people not like you whose values should be ignored.

That is some next level entitlement. It's very bad.

This kind of blatant disregard for other people's identity and values is what leads to most of our real world conflict. It literally kills people.

Yeah step off with that nonsense. The discussion is within the context of you playing a video game. We're not discussing the validity of drone strikes or anything to do with actual lives.

The basis for that point I made is that the game spits you out as a nobody pilot. The universe indifferent to you. So I think that design choice should be consistent.

Or are you going to get up in arms about virtual npc and player game lives being wasted because they messed up the landing procedure and the station smokes them?

 

[Cheese Helmet]

What is sufficiently? Lets think PvP content for some PvE player as kind of spam from that famous Monty Python show. Say our player does not want spam at all in his meal. Is little bit spam in ice cream just sufficiently spamless?

I don't know what sufficiently exactly is. If you expect me to develop the premise and present it to you as a beta test I got bad news for you. The effort needs to be made though.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Another option is to have systems or entire regions with different ingame rules.

Regions That Are Very Safe

• Pleasant for players that would otherwise play solo.
• Lower rewards. Except smuggling missions and illegal commodities which are super dangerous but pay lucrative rewards.
• Extremely hard for pirates & gankers. Dangerous for anybody that has been naughty.
• Very safe environment for law abiding citizens.
• Constant presence of security ships.
• Security ships quickly target players with notoriety or bounty.
• Players with bad rep get targeted by security, can't dock, no services. They will have to go elsewhere to improve rep, pay fines, etc.
• Docking & services prohibited to "undesirables".
• Less conflict zones, npc pirates, interdictions. Lower mission rewards. Limited mining and surface prospecting sites

Regions That Are Very Safe From PvP

• Similar to first region, except lots of NPCs, standard missions and rewards.
• Pleasant for players that would otherwise play solo.
• Extremely hard for pirates & gankers. Dangerous for anybody that has been naughty.

Regions That Are Very Unsafe

• The wild west, but the most rewards.
• Kill or be killed. Adventurers beware.
• Stations don't care who you are, or who you killed.
• Forget grinding for stuff, this is where you go! High risk, high rewards.

 

[Stelar 7]

Maybe I worded it badly. It's a have your cake and eat it too concept I have the issue with. So yeah select your own experience, but through the lense of the game as it's presented. So places woukd present different experiences and you choose your own experience through that method. Want safety then high sec should be designed to offer that, and med and low sec at appropriately lower degrees. But it's up to you to provide yourself that experience through decisions. So if you don't want to be attacked by goids you avoid those places because they're hostile by default and will actively go for you, even if it's just a hyperdiction on your initial arrival. In other words the game functions regardless of you, and you must navigate through that. Rather than currently where you are just to the side of everything and must divert into it.

I'm in favor of this, but on a more nuanced level. There are people who want high risk, but not player interaction.

Normally in a multiplayer game I tell them too bad so sad, because most games are either split by server or are all pvp or all pve. However Frontier have done something brilliant. They used instancing instead of a big single server. That cuts down on costs which adds longevity to the game. Then they add some selectivity to the instancing giving players broad, and previously to me at least, unheard of control over whom we choose to interact with.

Some people are toxic, on all sides of pve or pvp, and I love that I can remove them from my online space.

So, if you are good on leaving all three modes I think you and I largely agree some more fleshed out game systems and rules would be awesome.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

I don't know what sufficiently exactly is. If you expect me to develop the premise and present it to you as a beta test I got bad news for you. The effort needs to be made though.

There lies the catch, for some people proper amount of PvP is exactly zero. Regardless of where they go. And current system really is able to provide that.

 

[Mohrgan]

Another option is to have systems or entire regions with different ingame rules.

Regions That Are Very Safe

• Pleasant for players that would otherwise play solo.
• Lower rewards. Except smuggling missions and illegal commodities which are super dangerous but pay lucrative rewards.
• Extremely hard for pirates & gankers. Dangerous for anybody that has been naughty.
• Very safe environment for law abiding citizens.
• Constant presence of security ships.
• Security ships quickly target players with notoriety or bounty.
• Players with bad rep get targeted by security, can't dock, no services. They will have to go elsewhere to improve rep, pay fines, etc.
• Docking & services prohibited to "undesirables".
• Less conflict zones, npc pirates, interdictions. Lower mission rewards. Limited mining and surface prospecting sites

Regions That Are Very Safe From PvP

• Similar to first region, except lots of NPCs, standard missions and rewards.
• Pleasant for players that would otherwise play solo.
• Extremely hard for pirates & gankers. Dangerous for anybody that has been naughty.

Regions That Are Very Unsafe

• The wild west, but the most rewards.
• Kill or be killed. Adventurers beware.
• Stations don't care who you are, or who you killed.
• Forget grinding for stuff, this is where you go! High risk, high rewards.

We already have that. In the modes. If it's ok to section off parts of space, it should be ok to section off instancing. That's what we have.

Play how and where you like, and let others do the same. It's not a hard concept. Filling PvE buckets can be done from any mode. Choose the one you like.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Spoiler

Another option is to have systems or entire regions with different ingame rules.

Regions That Are Very Safe

• Pleasant for players that would otherwise play solo.
• Lower rewards. Except smuggling missions and illegal commodities which are super dangerous but pay lucrative rewards.
• Extremely hard for pirates & gankers. Dangerous for anybody that has been naughty.
• Very safe environment for law abiding citizens.
• Constant presence of security ships.
• Security ships quickly target players with notoriety or bounty.
• Players with bad rep get targeted by security, can't dock, no services. They will have to go elsewhere to improve rep, pay fines, etc.
• Docking & services prohibited to "undesirables".
• Less conflict zones, npc pirates, interdictions. Lower mission rewards. Limited mining and surface prospecting sites

Regions That Are Very Safe From PvP

• Similar to first region, except lots of NPCs, standard missions and rewards.
• Pleasant for players that would otherwise play solo.
• Extremely hard for pirates & gankers. Dangerous for anybody that has been naughty.

Regions That Are Very Unsafe

• The wild west, but the most rewards.
• Kill or be killed. Adventurers beware.
• Stations don't care who you are, or who you killed.
• Forget grinding for stuff, this is where you go! High risk, high rewards.

Ideally C&P would have done a lot of this. I personally don't care about realism in this sense; having (near-)godlike system security in high-sec and the complete recompense of insurance when illegally killed in high-sec would be fine with me. Conversely, if you chose to go to anarchy on your own volition your insurance is much higher than it currently is.

 

[Ian Skippy]

We already have that. In the modes. If it's ok to section off parts of space, it should be ok to section off instancing. That's what we have.

We do not. I remember spending a few days trucking stuff back and forth to a system, only to learn after days that the system was an anarchy system at war. I had never noticed; neither the risk nor the reward was much different from any other system. The whole issue of 'murderhobos' is because this difference does not exist. A proper C&P system would in effect result in countless bubble systems and regions being effectively Open PvE. I am sure many who would like such an experience wouldn't mind if anarchy would be a whole different story.

 

[Greasetrap42]

We already have that.

Instead of modes, regions could be created. To address the concern of players playing solo and affecting BGS. Also this levels the playing field. Same opportunities, missions, and level of danger for everybody.

Obviously the modes aren't going to be changed by FDev. They are what they are. I'm just saying a good alternative would have been regions of varying difficulty, risk, and rewards..

 

[leeG]

Id obviously prefer open only, but I think the best way to get to that desired end state should be to improve the game so that it address all player needs in the context of the elite galaxy, adequately enough that solo/pg are just superfluous.
So that's the point of my suggestion.

You prefer open? Good for you. Play the way you want.

But unless or until Frontier makes a single player version, solo (and PG) will never be superfluous.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

I'm in favor of this, but on a more nuanced level. There are people who want high risk, but not player interaction.

Normally in a multiplayer game I tell them too bad so sad, because most games are either split by server or are all pvp or all pve. However Frontier have done something brilliant. They used instancing instead of a big single server. That cuts down on costs which adds longevity to the game. Then they add some selectivity to the instancing giving players broad, and previously to me at least, unheard of control over whom we choose to interact with.

Some people are toxic, on all sides of pve or pvp, and I love that I can remove them from my online space.

So, if you are good on leaving all three modes I think you and I largely agree some more fleshed out game systems and rules would be awesome.

My ultimate goal with improvement is make solo and pg effectively dead like power play of course but I'll take the agreement and call it good.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

There lies the catch, for some people proper amount of PvP is exactly zero. Regardless of where they go. And current system really is able to provide that.

If it's 0 then they must be just as upset about the modes having a shared universe then too right? Because we have indirect PvP no matter what. So the idea 0 is the proper amount for people who enjoy playing this game is patently false. They just want 0 direct pvp, because of the direct potential for loss.

 

[House0fDerp]

Instead of modes, regions could be created. To address the concern of players playing solo and affecting BGS. Also this levels the playing field. Same opportunities, missions, and level of danger for everybody.

Obviously the modes aren't going to be changed by FDev. They are what they are. I'm just saying a good alternative would have been regions of varying difficulty, risk, and rewards..

Regions only work when what they offer is equal if another choice is present. So instead of playing solo in hotspots people start playing solo when in low security areas. And those playing solo full time continue to do so. If you actually make lower security areas better/more rewarding then you just created more incentive to dodge player interaction.

Not that security and C&P can't be interesting, but naturally risk assessment and bypassing where possible should be expected.

 

[House0fDerp]

If it's 0 then they must be just as upset about the modes having a shared universe then too right? Because we have indirect PvP no matter what. So the idea 0 is the proper amount for people who enjoy playing this game is patently false. They just want 0 direct pvp, because of the direct potential for loss.

Ok, sure, that does is clarify what 0 PvP means in the context of mode switching but still distinct modes address the desire for 0 combat PvP better than security options.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

If it's 0 then they must be just as upset about the modes having a shared universe then too right? Because we have indirect PvP no matter what. So the idea 0 is the proper amount for people who enjoy playing this game is patently false. They just want 0 direct pvp, because of the direct potential for loss.

Nitpicking, it is obvious that I meant direct PvP.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Regions only work when what they offer is equal if another choice is present. So instead of playing solo in hotspots people start playing solo when in low security areas. And those playing solo full time continue to do so...

Not following you. I was describing an alternative to ED having modes.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Ok, sure, that does is clarify what 0 PvP means in the context of mode switching but still distinct modes address the desire for 0 combat PvP better than security options.

Considering we haven't had better security options to see how that affect modes usage, that statement is baseless.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Nitpicking, it is obvious that I meant direct PvP.

It is, but the motive for why is important.

 

[House0fDerp]

Considering we haven't had better security options to see how that affect modes usage, that statement is baseless.

You think it's baseless to say that people who don't want to get shot at will chose the mode that precludes that possibility even if another mode is more likely to punish their attacker?

Not following you. I was describing an alternative to ED having modes.

So then the alternative is to have large swaths of space that players who would chose solo/PG just wouldn't want to use?