No. Let people choose what they prefer to play. Any incentive for one mode simply leads to many people choosing it grudingly, hating the fact that the game punishes them if they don't do so.
50% Credit Bonus on Open Play Server
- Thread starter Sunleader
- Start date
No. Let people choose what they prefer to play. Any incentive for one mode simply leads to many people choosing it grudingly, hating the fact that the game punishes them if they don't do so.
If you'd bother reading patch notes, you'd see there was portion of the latest patch last week that changed how the server decides to place players into the same instance.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Whether they choose to play open play begrudgingly or not is irrelevant. Nobody's forcing you to choose any specific play session. You're not being punished for not playing open play. You're rewarded for doing so.
There's two ways to look at it: be negative about it and jealous that someone else is getting something that you're choosing not to get, or be positive about it and realize that those who are playing in open play, taking the bigger risk, are getting rewarded for that risk.
Risk versus reward = fun. Do you not like fun? I like fun.
Last edited:
FIX: OpenPlay Incentive
Traders have no incentive to trade in open. Why should they when they can do it safely in solo, then jump into open with there several-hundred-million credit fighter ships?
Why is this a problem? Because it takes away a HUGE chunk from the multi-player experience. It greatly diminishes the opportunity for:
So rather than a dynamic universe, with many players performing different roles, it boils down to mainly just people who want to PK.
The Incentive:
The Balance:
With these very simple fixes, multiplayer will actually be fun and more dynamic, and also more ELITE DANGEROUS
To The Solo Fanatics:
I'm sure that the solo fanatics will whinge at these ideas (like they have been), complaining of "unfairness", but.. shut up. That's right, shut the hell up! These changes would not affect you in the slightest. Your solo experience would not change. IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU AT ALL.
This is supposed to be Elite: DANGEROUS, not Elite: Playschool.
Traders have no incentive to trade in open. Why should they when they can do it safely in solo, then jump into open with there several-hundred-million credit fighter ships?
Why is this a problem? Because it takes away a HUGE chunk from the multi-player experience. It greatly diminishes the opportunity for:
- Pirating
- Pirate hunting
- Trade escorting (when 'Wings' goes live)
So rather than a dynamic universe, with many players performing different roles, it boils down to mainly just people who want to PK.
The Incentive:
- 5-15% increase in profits from bounties/trading/missions in open play (yes this idea is mentioned a lot, and for good reason)
- Has ZERO impact on Solo play.
- Is a reasonable reward for the increased DANGER of other players.
The Balance:
- Greatly increased fines for killing CLEAN players
- Trade insurance (I like pirating, but killing a player who then loses MILLIONS whilst you only get a 5k fine is )
With these very simple fixes, multiplayer will actually be fun and more dynamic, and also more ELITE DANGEROUS
To The Solo Fanatics:
I'm sure that the solo fanatics will whinge at these ideas (like they have been), complaining of "unfairness", but.. shut up. That's right, shut the hell up! These changes would not affect you in the slightest. Your solo experience would not change. IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU AT ALL.
This is supposed to be Elite: DANGEROUS, not Elite: Playschool.
Last edited:
There's already a thread about this and it's even still on the first page, just a few posts down from yours. Why did you make a new thread, continuing to push good well-developed threads down and eventually off the front page?
Delete this thread and add it to this one: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=95255
Delete this thread and add it to this one: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=95255
The general idea of both threads is to offer a reward for open play. Combine the threads, like a counter offer. People are constantly making new threads about well-discussed topics over and over, pushing well-developed threads off the main page and it's infuriating. Good threads with good ideas that are developed in the thread get lost. It's time to stop that behavior. Nobody's trying to be a forum mod. What a preposterous allegation.
I truly believe that the constant spawning of these threads is indicative of the desperation within some segments of the community to have more targets to pew-pew.
Continually berating those who don't want to play with you, is not going to get them to play with you - and any artificial profit increase in one particular mode is simply going to be exploited by people who actually know anything about networking above the "I haz Innernetz!" level.
Continually berating those who don't want to play with you, is not going to get them to play with you - and any artificial profit increase in one particular mode is simply going to be exploited by people who actually know anything about networking above the "I haz Innernetz!" level.
Wow. I was agreeing with you... and just because I didn't expressly mention that I'd read patch notes doesn't mean that I didn't.
How is using a valid game mechanic turned into an exploit? Humor me in illustrating how it would be exploited to receive some form of higher credit reward for bounties or trading in Open Play.
Say there is a 50% increase in profits in Open vs Solo. Some enterprising individual logs into Open in his cargo-only Asp and trades away to his hearts content - completely safe from players as he dead-routes all incoming non-server connections, so any players will simply never see his instance.
What do you mean dead-routes all incoming non-server connections? What does that even mean, considering that ALL data transfered between your computer and the game servers are server connections?
Are you just making things up?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Only the P2P connections....
I'm not making anything up. Do you know what a router does? Do you know how UDP works? Not saying anything about you personally, but so many h@rdco4r gamers don't know the first thing about how anything networking-related works beyond typing in a password for mighty pew-pew.
Do you know what a NOC is? I worked in one for a few years.
If Frontier is foolish enough to allow P2P connections to dictate whether or not you see players in an instance, then they need to fix that as an exploitable offense. That problem has no bearing on whether or not the risk-vs-reward should be greater for playing in Open Play, which it should.
Hl
Internet credentials mean everything. I'm a mainframe guy, so what?
If Frontier is foolish enough to allow P2P connections to dictate whether or not you see players in an instance, then they need to fix that as an exploitable offense. That problem has no bearing on whether or not the risk-vs-reward should be greater for playing in Open Play, which it should.
[/QUOTE]
As should be immediately obvious to anyone who is able to observe, or gave even the most cursory glance as its development process, the game is not a client-server model, but a peer-to-peer model. Those peerage connections are managed by the players, and checksummed by the authentication servers.
If you want Elite to be a server-adjudicated game - then get back to your NOC and give them the cores, memory, and storage and bandwidth that would require - I am sure FD would be very appreciative.
Internet credentials mean everything. I'm a mainframe guy, so what?
If Frontier is foolish enough to allow P2P connections to dictate whether or not you see players in an instance, then they need to fix that as an exploitable offense. That problem has no bearing on whether or not the risk-vs-reward should be greater for playing in Open Play, which it should.
[/QUOTE]
As should be immediately obvious to anyone who is able to observe, or gave even the most cursory glance as its development process, the game is not a client-server model, but a peer-to-peer model. Those peerage connections are managed by the players, and checksummed by the authentication servers.
If you want Elite to be a server-adjudicated game - then get back to your NOC and give them the cores, memory, and storage and bandwidth that would require - I am sure FD would be very appreciative.
BTW there seems to be an official thread for discussing the modes now.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90583
Post #3 might be of interest. Looks like there may already be higher rewards in open play.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90583
Post #3 might be of interest. Looks like there may already be higher rewards in open play.
Someone actually had a better idea. But the server doesn't track combat it's all peer to peer.
They suggested that if someone pulls the plug during combat the attacker should get the bounty anyway, but take it from the victims in game credit stockpile. At least the attacker wouldnt have completely wasted their time. And peoples real life misfortunes like powercuts and poor network don't have such a big impact.
I noticed some people mention on another thread that if the connection is poor enough to have laggy rubber banding they will often quit. Seems to be one of the common reasons people leave at the first sight of other players.
They suggested that if someone pulls the plug during combat the attacker should get the bounty anyway, but take it from the victims in game credit stockpile. At least the attacker wouldnt have completely wasted their time. And peoples real life misfortunes like powercuts and poor network don't have such a big impact.
I noticed some people mention on another thread that if the connection is poor enough to have laggy rubber banding they will often quit. Seems to be one of the common reasons people leave at the first sight of other players.