Continuous play in the Open is more risky hence should be rewarded

Alex Korr V

Alex Korr V
Hello CMDRs & Frontier Development Team,

Background: I'm a rookie to Elite Dangerous. Even though I purchased it some time ago, I was rather an occasional player.
Now that I've got more time to go deeper into this marvelous spacefaring world, I hope that I can offer my fresh eyes to the community and contribute to resolving some of its challenges.

Problem statement
There is no motivation for players to do any kind of dangerous activities in the Open mode, except deliberate PvP combat or I-play-open-only ideology.
For example, if I'm trading gold or doing powerplay missions in systems populated with players, it is much safer for my in-game wallet to do it in Solo.

Impact
World feels less player-populated and actually much less dangerous.
Player population is divided: traders and explorers often play in Solo or Private whilst Open is filled with bounty hunters, pirates and simply gankers. Because of the players switching to Solo or Private as soon as they sense any danger for their wallets or intended activities, there is no reason for folks doing bounty hunting and pirating to stay in the Open either, hence we have gankers left.

Solution
As doing all kinds of activities in the Open mode is more dangerous, logic of higher risk leading to higher reward can be applied.
No changes to Solo or Private modes should be done, but continuous play in the Open should be rewarded if player is up for the risk.

Example:
Playing in the Open mode for 7 days in a row triggers permanent credit bonuses of 10-15% for successful mission completion, trading, bounty vouchers, exploration data etc.
Should you log into Solo or Private, it will reset to normal rates, until you've played Open-only for 7 days in a row again.

What do you think, CMDRs?
 

Brrokk

Brrokk
James Korvin said:
Hello CMDRs & Frontier Development Team,

Background: I'm a rookie to Elite Dangerous. Even though I purchased it some time ago, I was rather an occasional player.
Now that I've got more time to go deeper into this marvelous spacefaring world, I hope that I can offer my fresh eyes to the community and contribute to resolving some of its challenges.

Problem statement
There is no motivation for players to do any kind of dangerous activities in the Open mode, except deliberate PvP combat or I-play-open-only ideology.
For example, if I'm trading gold or doing powerplay missions in systems populated with players, it is much safer for my in-game wallet to do it in Solo.

Impact
World feels less player-populated and actually much less dangerous.
Player population is divided: traders and explorers often play in Solo or Private whilst Open is filled with bounty hunters, pirates and simply gankers. Because of the players switching to Solo or Private as soon as they sense any danger for their wallets or intended activities, there is no reason for folks doing bounty hunting and pirating to stay in the Open either, hence we have gankers left.

Solution
As doing all kinds of activities in the Open mode is more dangerous, logic of higher risk leading to higher reward can be applied.
No changes to Solo or Private modes should be done, but continuous play in the Open should be rewarded if player is up for the risk.

Example:
Playing in the Open mode for 7 days in a row triggers permanent credit bonuses of 10-15% for successful mission completion, trading, bounty vouchers, exploration data etc.
Should you log into Solo or Private, it will reset to normal rates, until you've played Open-only for 7 days in a row again.

What do you think, CMDRs?
Click to expand...
The world hardly ever seems populated, but this isn't because of play modes; it's simply the size of the universe and the number of players. FD say that most players already play in Open. If you want to meet other players you'll need to join an organised activity or a squadron. The chances of meeting others by accident are... astronomical. :)

Once you know the game, Open isn't any more dangerous than any other mode, so no "reward" for playing in it is warranted. There's nothing special about Open and the game design means that all players can use the mode they consider appropriate for what they're doing at the time.
 

Chrystoph

Chrystoph
@James Korvin - What you are perceiving as an "Open" problem really amounts to the fact that Elite has no built in choke points to force players into proximity when traveling.

Normally, the choke points in the game are either transient (CGs, special events) or temporary for the player (Engineering, Guardian sites, etc). In those places, you'll usually find a fair amount of player base. Whether they are people you want to encounter varies by your personal objectives.

With no method of compelling players to move through specific localities during travel, a change of .1 LY in your jump range can result in a completely different routing, causing the odds of encountering another person to decrease drastically.
 
Last edited:

Dragsham

Dragsham
Right on above post. Why is it the popcorn brigade jump on all the stuff they scorn with gusto. Open only to alot of players is the biggest issue this game has. I'm convinced if it were only one galaxy instead of 3 we would all benefit. Care bears would be more appreciative of a good build. Realism immersion and stress as well as reward.
So whats not to like.
We could just stay the same and watch elite become niche again. 8 players from Loughborough all pallywally silencing everything outside their comfort zone
 

Phoenix_Dfire

Phoenix_Dfire
I've always thought that there needs to be more NPC pirate activity, especially in medium, low and inhabited anarchy systems. It really feels that traders who Min/Max would be easy pickings for those who prey on big fat traders.
 

SwordSmith95

SwordSmith95
Phoenix_Dfire said:
I've always thought that there needs to be more NPC pirate activity, especially in medium, low and inhabited anarchy systems. It really feels that traders who Min/Max would be easy pickings for those who prey on big fat traders.
Click to expand...
I don't know why, but it feels like I get pulled by NPC Pirates in my Vette far more often than in any of my Cargo Runners.

I personally don't think that ED should be Open Only, but that doesn't mean that the people advocating for it should be silenced. All of us, I believe, have a better game in mind when we make these suggestions.
 

Nadreck

N
FrogsFriend said:
I assume you mean with lots of useful things like cargo space, passenger cabins, collector limpets, exploration scanners, SRVs and such like, rather than wasting valuable space on oversized weapons, reinforcements, etc. ?
:unsure: :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember during DW2, when the "Distant Ganks" mob were active. Someone posted a Krait Phantom build that could supposedly "survive any gank". It had about two-thirds of the jumprange of my own very well-equipped Phantom.
 

[VR] Bulbulunufus

[VR] Bulbulunufus
James Korvin said:
Hello CMDRs & Frontier Development Team,

Background: I'm a rookie to Elite Dangerous. Even though I purchased it some time ago, I was rather an occasional player.
Now that I've got more time to go deeper into this marvelous spacefaring world, I hope that I can offer my fresh eyes to the community and contribute to resolving some of its challenges.

Problem statement
There is no motivation for players to do any kind of dangerous activities in the Open mode, except deliberate PvP combat or I-play-open-only ideology.
For example, if I'm trading gold or doing powerplay missions in systems populated with players, it is much safer for my in-game wallet to do it in Solo.

Impact
World feels less player-populated and actually much less dangerous.
Player population is divided: traders and explorers often play in Solo or Private whilst Open is filled with bounty hunters, pirates and simply gankers. Because of the players switching to Solo or Private as soon as they sense any danger for their wallets or intended activities, there is no reason for folks doing bounty hunting and pirating to stay in the Open either, hence we have gankers left.

Solution
As doing all kinds of activities in the Open mode is more dangerous, logic of higher risk leading to higher reward can be applied.
No changes to Solo or Private modes should be done, but continuous play in the Open should be rewarded if player is up for the risk.

Example:
Playing in the Open mode for 7 days in a row triggers permanent credit bonuses of 10-15% for successful mission completion, trading, bounty vouchers, exploration data etc.
Should you log into Solo or Private, it will reset to normal rates, until you've played Open-only for 7 days in a row again.

What do you think, CMDRs?
Click to expand...
Fine, but it would have to be based on measures of player interaction and actual risk in my view. Hard to do without some meaningful dev resource allocated. Recording instancing with dangerous players, noting the player population or player murder rate in systems visited (involving players you haven't blocked), etc.

I'd prefer it if mechanics in game were designed from the get-go in a way that incentivises organic open play. But that would require even more resource 🙂.
 

Para Handy

Para Handy
James Korvin said:
.......Open is more risky hence should be rewarded
......
Click to expand...


old chestnut.jpg
 

Zannry

Zannry
The galaxy is big. Having more players in open won't significantly increase the likelihood you'll see someone. What Elite could benefit from are more reasons to congregate other than CGs or the need to Engineer.

To your idea of incentivizing open play I'm in favor of it to some extent. Instead of a flat bonus or anything remotely like that I'd rather see for example open only purchasable commodities. Limit them to a few markets like rare goods where they are bought and more importantly sold to create nature player routes/channels.

Give them an unstable quality like the existing unstable data core so after certain conditions they expire and become worthless. Make those conditions be a set period of hours they remain viable and adversely affected by mode changes.

You could even borrow from the existing passenger hauling mechanics and incorporate a condition that taking 50% or more hull damage renders the cargo worthless. Make those commodities cheap to buy with large but not insane margins. Margins perhaps between cheap infrastruture failure Palladium and easy log and reload meta alloys. Enough to entice people open to the idea of increased risk/reward and the allure of adrenaline without completing invalidating Private and Solo play.

Adding a damage component to cargo viability could be another means to get greifed. It also incentives actual piracy too. We'll never be rid of griefers so why not help out legit pirates and open traders by giving a reason not to resort to violence on both sides.

I don't expect this thread or any of my thoughts above to change much. I do think at the spirit of the OPs post is a desire to see a more vibrant galaxy incentivizing player interactions. I'm not sure there is a valid argument against exploring ideas to promote increases player interactions for those that want them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom