A Compromise

[BingBong]

o7

With the Thargoids arriving at some point within the next two months(ish ) I was thinking about how their arrival will be sort of fragmented with people spread between solo, private groups and open, I was also thinking about the debate about open and griefers etc.

I think I've got a good compromise, I can't think why anybody would be against it because it benefits all, even the griefers in a way because they would have more prey as it were.

{ "timestamp":"2017-01-14T17:29:34Z", "event":"Died", "Killers":[ { "Name":"Cmdr Redacted", "Ship":"federation_corvette", "Rank":"Dangerous" }, { "Name":"Cmdr Redacted", "Ship":"federation_corvette", "Rank":"Dangerous" } ] }
Killed by players/player.

{ "timestamp":"2017-02-03T00:19:44Z", "event":"Died", "KillerName":"$ShipName_MilitaryFighter_Federation;", "KillerName_Localised":"Federal Navy Fighter", "KillerShip":"federation_fighter", "KillerRank":"Elite" }
I believe this is death by AI.

{ "timestamp":"2017-02-11T01:36:05Z", "event":"Died" }
Killed by collision with moon or whatever pilot error, unfortunatley ramming will come under this.

So looking at those log entries I'm sure it must be fairly simple to set it so that if killed by a player the insurance cost could be cut to say 1% instead of 5%, you would still lose cargo and exp data. All other forms of death would still be full rebuy.

Would this system bring more people into open? It would for me obviously the amount of reduction does not have to be 1%.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So looking at those log entries I'm sure it must be fairly simple to set it so that if killed by a player the insurance cost could be cut to say 1% instead of 5%, you would still lose cargo and exp data. All other forms of death would still be full rebuy.

Would this system bring more people into open? It would for me obviously the amount of reduction does not have to be 1%.

Probably not - as the losses due to cargo, exploration data, etc. can significantly exceed a 5% rebuy.

Low rebuy when attacked by another player may well make the attackers more prolific (as their cost-base would have reduced).

 

[Schmack]

It's not like the goids are going to show up like a capital ship right down mainstreet of the galaxy in all modes. I'd think they'd just be interdicting you now and then, or you'd get a mission to go do this or that. Why does anyone need to be in Open to participate? Admitting of course that I haven't kept up with our protoplasmic friends.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Half the time its not money keeping people out of Open, it's the time investment.

It more or less rains money in ED. Lol
But everything in ED takes time.
I don't get a great deal of time to play, so if I'm trying to get something done, I'll stick to Mobius or solo to avoid harassment from PvPers.

As soon as I'm at a loose end, I'll fly around in Open. Nothing would change that.

And of course, some players just don't want to play in open, or with anyone else, ever.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Morbad]

I am completely against anything that reduces the consequences of ship loss further. I am completely against anything that distinguishes between CMDR and NPC when it comes to consequences. Thus I am wholly opposed to the second power to this suggestion.

Such things cheapen my experience and undermine what sense of verisimilitude the game is still capable of instilling in me. They are anathema to the depiction of a plausible setting.

 

[BingBong]

Ah well thats that then

 

[MottiKhan]

I am completely against anything that reduces the consequences of ship loss further. I am completely against anything that distinguishes between CMDR and NPC when it comes to consequences. Thus I am wholly opposed to the second power to this suggestion.

Such things cheapen my experience and undermine what sense of verisimilitude the game is still capable of instilling in me. They are anathema to the depiction of a plausible setting.

+1. It's already trivially easy to rebuy a ship. The only actual loss is time invested in the current task. Also trivial in most cases.

 

[Mohrgan]

In short, sending peeps to the re-buy is the only thing that matters. No re-buy, no satisfaction.

What reducing another players bank account has to do with verisimilitude is beyond me. The victor never sees that loss happen, or gain from it, unless you count the personal satisfaction of handing someone the loss. That is certainly an out-of-game motivation.

I don't think a reduction in Re-Buy would get me interested more in open. I have plenty of credits, and that is not my motivation for avoiding open like the plague.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

No, because getting OHK by OP pimpships is only so much fun.

 

[Morbad]

In short, sending peeps to the re-buy is the only thing that matters. No re-buy, no satisfaction.

The suggestion proposed wouldn't reduce the number of rebuys. It might increase them, by reducing their already limited consequences, and encourage even more reckless behavior.

That's where verisimilitude comes in. My CMDR is rather cautious as CMDRs go and I have a very low number of insurance claims for the time I've spent playing. Yet, despite all this, my CMDR has still been given ships and equipment whose street prices exceed his lifetime gross income by several fold...with not so much as a rate hike or audit from the insurer. More cavalier CMDRs may have received handouts an order of magnitude in excess of mine.

People endlessly hurling ships at eachother knowing they'll always safely eject and always be given another vessel is a major aspect of the game that flies in the face of immersion.

The victor never sees that loss happen, or gain from it, unless you count the personal satisfaction of handing someone the loss. That is certainly an out-of-game motivation.

The attrition of one's foes is as in-game a motivation as can be. If someone crosses my CMDR, it's only natural for my CMDR to want to annihilate that threat, so that it can never be a threat again.

The desire for a mutually enjoyable experience between players is what is out-of-game.

 

[Mohrgan]

The suggestion proposed wouldn't reduce the number of rebuys. It might increase them, by reducing their already limited consequences, and encourage even more reckless behavior.

That's where verisimilitude comes in. My CMDR is rather cautious as CMDRs go and I have a very low number of insurance claims for the time I've spent playing. Yet, despite all this, my CMDR has still been given ships and equipment whose street prices exceed his lifetime gross income by several fold...with not so much as a rate hike or audit from the insurer. More cavalier CMDRs may have received handouts an order of magnitude in excess of mine.

People endlessly hurling ships at eachother knowing they'll always safely eject and always be given another vessel is a major aspect of the game that flies in the face of immersion.



The attrition of one's foes is as in-game a motivation as can be. If someone crosses my CMDR, it's only natural for my CMDR to want to annihilate that threat, so that it can never be a threat again.

The desire for a mutually enjoyable experience between players is what is out-of-game.

Different points of view, and never the twain shall meet. I'm not interested in debating this, we won't see eye to eye anyway.