How could players be encouraged to put themselves into dangerous pvp scenarios, even when they don't have to?

[Northpin]

I'm with you.

GAME DESIGN IS FLAWED.

What has been set at inception, and barely updated in the last few years, doesn't work anymore... as simply as said.

105 pages of leading the bush.

I disagree...
If it was flawed. ED would be a shadow game with a couple hundred players left.

But it's not right?
Last year it had 500,000 monthly players (unique accounts) - which means the player based increase year by year.

Which means they are doing something right and the game design around modes is actually working

 

[Northpin]

Exactly - most good MMO have an Open-PvE game mode that this one sadly lacks....

I actually wish they would implement an open pve mode.
But i guess it would be the end of pvp in ED

Still nice to have

 

[ethelred]

My position has never (or at least not recently) to nerf solo or to advocate open bonuses, but it is, has been and will always to add more co-op gameplay that benefits all modes, with NPCs being available for solo play.

Together with a return to making NPCs act appropriately depending on system state in terms of (as seen in earlier games), security and aggressiveness.

In response to Roberts point on save games - with rebuy costs covered I can't see the difference between a reload save, and spawn at the closest station (notwithstanding elements that do not respawn such as explorere data and cargo)

 

[ethelred]

I actually wish they would implement an open pve mode.
But i guess it would be the end of pvp in ED

Still nice to have

PvE mode and Ironman PvP Open.

Yes please.

 

[INSTG8R]

Exactly - most good MMO have an Open-PvE game mode that this one sadly lacks....

Well I haven’t used it years but Möbius has multiple regional PGs last time I noticed there were 3500 in mine

 

[Robert Maynard]

In response to Roberts point on save games - with rebuy costs covered I can't see the difference between a reload save, and spawn at the closest station (notwithstanding elements that do not respawn such as explorere data and cargo)

The old games could be played with no risk of the CMDR losing anything due to the ability to repeatedly attempt any part of the game with the ability to go back to the previous CMDR state at any time - that is not the case in this version of the game where there's no ability to reload and try again from exactly the same starting point after the loss of the ship - the player's only option is to lose a rebuy and whatever is in the ship (the value of which may be orders of magnitude greater than the rebuy)

 

[ethelred]

The old games could be played with no risk of the CMDR losing anything due to the ability to repeatedly attempt any part of the game with the ability to go back to the previous CMDR state at any time - that is not the case in this version of the game where there's no ability to reload and try again from exactly the same starting point after the loss of the ship - the player's only option is to lose a rebuy and whatever is in the ship (the value of which may be orders of magnitude greater than the rebuy)

I'm pretty sure there was an insurance placeholder on one of the ship screens in earlier versions, so that would mitigate the cargo.

In terms of explorer data, I have long believed that it's inconsistent to lose data but not mats, so that would need looking at.

So, status quo or accept with proposed changes?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm pretty sure there was an insurance placeholder on one of the ship screens in earlier versions, so that would mitigate the cargo.

It was removed long ago - Frontier decided not to offer cargo insurance.

In terms of explorer data, I have long believed that it's inconsistent to lose data but not mats, so that would need looking at.

They choose not to do that either - and the introduction of the ability to sell exploration data on any Carrier that one may dock on, noting that the DSSA has placed them in many locations throughout the galaxy, suggests that there's less likelihood of that changing now than there might have been prior to the introduction of Carriers.

So, status quo or accept with proposed changes?

Which changes? There's no single defined scope of proposed changes to discuss.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

I agree, but I think the solutions people often go for are opposite what they should be.

For example, people want to give a multiplier to goods hauled in Open. I would rather Open and Solo be made more alike, rather than more different. So, for example, if the system is supposed to be dangerous, it should be dangerous regardless of whether or not you've got gankers there. This CG in particular is clearly meant to have a strong pirate presence in the area, so hauling in a minmaxed cutter should be essentially impossible no matter the mode.

On the flipside, some CGs are clearly meant to be simple hauling without danger. In those cases, there should be added protections brought to the CG systems to make open as SAFE as solo.

Net result; if it's supposed to be a dangerous CG, players must prepare for danger regardless of mode. If it's supposed to be a safe CG, players are safe regardless of mode. Thus freeing them to pick their socialization level of choice without worrying about tertiary factors.

Absolutely agree, and fdev have already created a safe zone for new players, although I find it rather contrived.
The problem is that the idea of increasing the distinction between safety and danger in geographic areas of space alarms a portion of the player base, who jumps to the wrong conclusions I.e. that it’s a plot by pvp players are just increase their cannon fodder potential, or just make the game in general more ‘difficult’ for all.
I see it as a way of increasing realism and colour to the game more than anything else.
Currently the C&P system is the equivalent of the beige planets we used to have.

we now have a new pallet with high contrast planets, let’s try the same with the other areas of the game.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

My position has never (or at least not recently) to nerf solo or to advocate open bonuses, but it is, has been and will always to add more co-op gameplay that benefits all modes, with NPCs being available for solo play.

Together with a return to making NPCs act appropriately depending on system state in terms of (as seen in earlier games), security and aggressiveness.

In response to Roberts point on save games - with rebuy costs covered I can't see the difference between a reload save, and spawn at the closest station (notwithstanding elements that do not respawn such as explorere data and cargo)

The difference comes when someone spends three months collecting cartographic data worth half a billion returns to the bubble only to be blown up by some teenage-minded kidult for lols in three seconds (because long jump builds are paper spacecraft.) No amount of buffing system security will make up for that loss.

Rebuy does not equal reload save in any shape or form.

 

[Riverside]

The difference comes when someone spends three months collecting cartographic data worth half a billion returns to the bubble only to be blown up by some teenage-minded kidult for lols in three seconds (because long jump builds are paper spacecraft.) No amount of buffing system security will make up for that loss.

Rebuy does not equal reload save in any shape or form.

Where is the explorer trying to sell their data, and why? Explo data is tactically useful, a pretty powerful faction influencing tool. I almost always have some on me, it is a significant incentive to avoid losing a hull.

If a player is more concerned about the tags than the money or influence from selling exploration data that issue is 100% solved by selling it on a carrier (less money but gets the tags) or quiet system (more money). If a player is more concerned with credits per hour or particularly influence (so needs to sell it in a specific location) then swapping to a safer ship on a carrier or quiet system would be sensible (or explore armed & armoured, a significant compromise few accept), and plenty of it can be obtained in the bubble itself from mapping earth-likes in agricultural economies.

Exploration data is a faction influencing, tactically useful tool. I almost always have some on me and provides significant motivation to not lose a hull, as you say far more than bounties which tend to be gathered as they are needed (tactically).

 

[CaptainPugwash]

The difference comes when someone spends three months collecting cartographic data worth half a billion returns to the bubble only to be blown up by some teenage-minded kidult for lols in three seconds (because long jump builds are paper spacecraft.) No amount of buffing system security will make up for that loss.

Rebuy does not equal reload save in any shape or form.

Agreed, although you can now sell your data to a fleet carrier away from the bubble, so that problem is more or less solved

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

I would rather Open and Solo be made more alike, rather than more different. So, for example, if the system is supposed to be dangerous, it should be dangerous regardless of whether or not you've got gankers there. This CG in particular is clearly meant to have a strong pirate presence in the area, so hauling in a minmaxed cutter should be essentially impossible no matter the mode.

I see, you'd rather see solo more like open. And this is why these discussions are a complete waste of bandwidth and time.

 

[ethelred]

The difference comes when someone spends three months collecting cartographic data worth half a billion returns to the bubble only to be blown up by some teenage-minded kidult for lols in three seconds (because long jump builds are paper spacecraft.) No amount of buffing system security will make up for that loss.

Rebuy does not equal reload save in any shape or form.

Yes, and I have already stated explorer data being a separate case.

But - as the game stands, why on earth would you risk so much data in Open?

Years ago a flew to Sgr A* in a hauler, in Open and returned to the bubble.

The last couple of kylies was terrifying - but I sold at the first station I arrived at.

If I wanted to deposit the data on a specific system I would either have switched ship or used solo.

Why should an explorer willing to risk so much in Open be immune from the effect of open as it stands? I have never understood this.

Robert:-

IF cargo insurance AND IF explo data insurance - rebuy costs = as close as possible to reloading a save in ED

Opinion?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Robert:-

IF cargo insurance AND IF explo data insurance - rebuy costs = as close as possible to reloading a save in ED

Opinion?

That'd probably be better than we have now - of course it would apply in all game modes, not just in Open.

It would follow the "less loss" approach rather than the "Open bonus" approach - I prefer the former as it only comes in to play after an event rather than giving a blanket bonus to playing when one may meet no player hazards at all.

 

[Brrokk]

The difference comes when someone spends three months collecting cartographic data worth half a billion returns to the bubble only to be blown up by some teenage-minded kidult for lols in three seconds (because long jump builds are paper spacecraft.) No amount of buffing system security will make up for that loss.

Rebuy does not equal reload save in any shape or form.

That's a bad scenario, but I think anyone who lets it happen is being a bit daft.

I'm returning from a long trip soon. I'm planning to summon my carrier and switch to a combat ship before re-entering the Bubble... in Solo.

 

[Northpin]

I see, you'd rather see solo more like open. And this is why these discussions are a complete waste of bandwidth and time.

Ofcourse they are a complete waste.

Each player type thinks the way he's playing the game is the right way and everyone should play like him.

FDev does not share this view - they seem to want ED to be the same, no matter the mode you play so each player to be able to affect the galaxy in the same way and play by the same rules.

edit: typos

 

[ethelred]

That'd probably be better than we have now - of course it would apply in all game modes, not just in Open.

It would follow the "less loss" approach rather than the "Open bonus" approach - I prefer the former as it only comes in to play after an event rather than giving a blanket bonus to playing when one may meet no player hazards at all.

I think if the countless pages have taught us anything, and they haven't, an Open Bonus systems isn't workable.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

That's a bad scenario, but I think anyone who lets it happen is being a bit daft.

I'm returning from a long trip soon. I'm planning to summon my carrier and switch to a combat ship before re-entering the Bubble... in Solo.

Not everyone can afford a fleet carrier. Some people aren't clued in about local fleet carriers. Some people are not clued in, because most of the time they are far away from civilisation - for good reason. Some people absentmindedly click open. It happens.

However, anyone who is linked in to Inara or EDSM is trackable by gankers and are therefore easy lols targets.

There are people, like me, who get to play maybe a couple of hours a week, don't particularly take part in the forums, and so being described as a bit daft is heavy going. Likely they are just minding their own business. A loss like that is likely to drive the person from the game altogether.

People have their own home systems that they want to remain involved with, have other ships parked, and so return there, not particularly mindful of the pain they are inflicting on your aims. Not everyone thinks like you or cares.

Some just keep out of your way - in Mobius, like me.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I disagree...
If it was flawed. ED would be a shadow game with a couple hundred players left.

But it's not right?
Last year it had 500,000 monthly players (unique accounts) - which means the player based increase year by year.

Which means they are doing something right and the game design around modes is actually working

Flawed doesn't mean broken. It's flawed because people don't play open when they expect to get shot for no reason. Open doesn't fill their expectation of coop MP, hence it's flawed. The PvP player argues with different arguments but with the same outcome. Both types don't get what they bought the game for - the design is flawed - it cannot deliver what it set out to promise.