Easy grief and trader fix via insurance

[NeilF]

This is where my confusion comes from. It's already there, almost as you say, but without instructions. I'm an Imperial PPer too, and we do the convoy one a lot between the Empire and the Federation, I think the teams are called Killjoys and Reapers respectively, but it's between stars and the station with interdictions rather than beacons. But the convoy is piloted by humans too. Ship defence doesn't seem much different to fighting in a CZ with a capital, but there's no NPC's? Combat zones of any kind without NPCs would be cool. Area domination is most of what the PvPers at CG's do. We grab someone, then fight over that space until there's no one left for one side to nav lock new players into the instance. Do it enough and eventually one side will dominate supercruise too. When I've been on the losing side, we have to jump and fly in formation so we don't get separated as soon as we jump back in, and try to take the system back to make it safe for Imperial pilots or whatever. It's heaps of fun, and I think a lot of people would play if they knew, but so many just assume we're all murderhobos and PvP is pointless. Noob defence is a thankless task I tells ya

I guess my point is, if the game pro-actively orchestrated these kinds of activities, and importantly, they had some sort of true measure/worth/effect. ie: Rather than groups having to organise them themselves, the game did. ie: A specific one or two Powerplay missions/tasks/CGs with ideally slightly pimped up gameplay/mechanics available. Or CGs specifically aimed at OPEN/PvP. All of whcih offered "legal" PvP.

eg: Convoys simply being interdicted seems a bit pointless? However, having them for example having to fly from beacon A to B in normal space? Or if a specific station was being blockaded so you exited SC far further out (than 5-10km). Imagine CMDRs trying to get across the system safetly in SC, and then get to the station across 100km of space when arriving there.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

LOL @ People who don't understand PvP or big ship expense (Even for billionaires) trying to "Balance" it with gimmick systems they make up. Go ahead and lose a few Anaconda's, Corvettes, or Cutters, those billions quickly drop since the average PvP Corvette / Cutter is a 40mil+ rebuy with standard insurance (unless you were a kicker starter backer who got like 98% covered insurance and only pays 20 mil per, but those are rare to see).

Money quickly goes in this game and post 2.3 it won't be easy to make outside of tedious BH or trading since missions will only stack up to 3 of the same type, and their "buff" to the payouts is probably less than 10% bonus. So money is actually gonna be hard to earn, the way Frontier wanted it. So we're all gonna be in trouble money wise. Oh and if you wanna leave, theres the door, I'm sure the forever in-development Star Citizen will gladly take your money to fulfill your space game needs, but oh wait, that has online too and pay to win mechanics for the kickstater backers who bought real mega ships (think Elite capital ships) with real life cash, who will be ganking from day 1... if it ever comes out.

Shaddup, let Frontier balance it their way, stop coming up with bad "ideas" and "punishments" for PvP'ers when it's you who can't fly properly or panics when interdicted (or breaks the speed limit near stations), and learn to actually get good.

All CMDRs should balance up the risks of what ships they fly anyway, doesn't matter if your a billionaire or not.

Mission stacking is clearly a bit of a loophole in the game mechanics not really intended by the devs. So they come up with an inelegant fix as sorting it out properly would be a massive job.

Crime & Punishment including bounty system is crying out for a bit of attention as it is clearly dysfunctional. Changes to the C&P game mechanics would create better PvP combat potential and all round more interesting gameplay. Imagine PvP bounty/assassination potential where CMDR's could be tracked with limpets and ship scans. Or where every PvP combat has something riding on it e.g. reputation or potentially increased insurance cost for the loser, based on reputation and claim rate.

The problem for OPEN is having it accessible and fun for everybody. Trading and mining for instance has no real tangible benefits for trading in OPEN, there is exactly the same reward with more risk. If more traders stay in SOLO then genuine PvP piracy is limited as there are less traders. Why not balance the risks up a bit by CMDR's with bad reputations regarding the PF have to pay more insurance and have bounties put on their heads. This will provide lots of PvP combat opportunity for those inclined and give better risk rewards for those who are not.

There is no harm in people expressing views or offering ideas or opinions about the game either, that is what the forum is for. ED is a massive work in progress being built and refined with each update. Just saying go and play Star Citizen is a bit weak, as that game is really aimed at PvP combat only as far as I can see.

 

[Cageman]

The problem for OPEN is having it accessible and fun for everybody. Trading and mining for instance has no real tangible benefits for trading in OPEN, there is exactly the same reward with more risk.

Interesting idea... however, how does the game track wether I stay in Open when I go from A-B? I go to A in Solo or PG, switch to Open, buy the goods, switch to Solo or PG and travel to B. Switch to Open, sell at B with the benefits of being in Open (higher risk), but didn't have to travel in Open at all.

If Open vs Solo or PG should have higher risk and rewards, there needs to be mechanics that prohibit a player from switching Modes during a play session. Or when you buy goods to sell, you commit to either do the delivery in Open or in Solo/PG. If you ever switch modes with the cargo in the hold, they will end up as illegal goods. You can still log out etc, but if you do that and return later to complete the delivery, make sure to remember which game mode you need to log into.

I mean... there are just so many potential exploits with the three game modes at the moment, for allowing Open have more risk / reward without FD having to invent things I wrote as an example above.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

Interesting idea... however, how does the game track wether I stay in Open when I go from A-B? I go to A in Solo or PG, switch to Open, buy the goods, switch to Solo or PG and travel to B. Switch to Open, sell at B with the benefits of being in Open (higher risk), but didn't have to travel in Open at all.

If Open vs Solo or PG should have higher risk and rewards, there needs to be mechanics that prohibit a player from switching Modes during a play session. Or when you buy goods to sell, you commit to either do the delivery in Open or in Solo/PG. If you ever switch modes with the cargo in the hold, they will end up as illegal goods. You can still log out etc, but if you do that and return later to complete the delivery, make sure to remember which game mode you need to log into.

I mean... there are just so many potential exploits with the three game modes at the moment, for allowing Open have more risk / reward without FD having to invent things I wrote as an example above.

Yep it would be messy by explicitly trying to balance risks and rewards like you mention. It wasn't quite the point I was trying to make, more that the c&p game mechanics, as is, don't really offer a lot to traders/miners etc. in OPEN. With a bit of imagination I believe that can be improved, if not rectified.

Secondly mode switching is definitely another unintended loop hole in the game mechanics that tinkering along the lines you suggested won't really help. Personally I would just have OPEN mode for everybody. Failing that, however, having effectively a character for each mode, i.e. CMDR Me [OPEN], CMDR Me [SOLO] CMDR Me [Private Group] all credits, missions and ships stay separate also non-transferable between modes. Start and end where you left of in that particular mode, they are effectively separate games anyway.

 

[NeilF]

Interesting idea... however, how does the game track wether I stay in Open when I go from A-B? I go to A in Solo or PG, switch to Open, buy the goods, switch to Solo or PG and travel to B. Switch to Open, sell at B with the benefits of being in Open (higher risk), but didn't have to travel in Open at all.

If Open vs Solo or PG should have higher risk and rewards, there needs to be mechanics that prohibit a player from switching Modes during a play session. Or when you buy goods to sell, you commit to either do the delivery in Open or in Solo/PG. If you ever switch modes with the cargo in the hold, they will end up as illegal goods. You can still log out etc, but if you do that and return later to complete the delivery, make sure to remember which game mode you need to log into.

I mean... there are just so many potential exploits with the three game modes at the moment, for allowing Open have more risk / reward without FD having to invent things I wrote as an example above.

I'd envisage it should be quite easy for the game to keep track of any/all cargo being OPEN or not? ie: When ever you log on, if you have any cargo onboard and you're in SOLO/GROUP, "tag" it as "non-OPEN"... Done!

If/when you obtain cargo, it's tagged similarly.

So only cargo obtained in OPEN, and that always existed in OPEN , with still be flagged as "OPEN".

 

[Miklos Atreides]

I do not know why so many people have so many problems with those three modes that are existing how they exist with intension. Why the solution is always to give up the 1 universe behind the modes idea.
Ok, powerplayers are disapointed because of that, but in fact its a problem of Powerplay not of modes. if you want encourage player to choose Open Mode there is only one way to achieve this. There is to be
an item that it is attractive enough to play with others. Means content I can only do with others. Money may attract someone but not all. It is not all about money.

It is often forgotten that there are a couple of Adrenaline allergics around as well and to get them to play open needs other aspects than thrilling PVP.
CG are a good thing to play together, but fact is most prefer more civilized group playing rather than war like open play. Hence CGs in open seem to be fallen
to aggression in Open and many players try to avoid this.

Additional there is currently a development trend in place that combat oriented features are introduced with every update.
For the more peace oriented players there is not much in the enhancement driving them more and more in a worse position
and finally they drop out of open preferring another mode where they are able to survive.
To stop this type of erosion a change in development priorities is needed.

Regards,
Miklos