How Open-only would balance ED

[Robert Maynard]

Fair comment.

I'm sure it'd need some tweaking, and perhaps some kind of "damping" in the early game, so newbies aren't immediately faced with the full level of hostility they're likely to find in Open, but it'd ramp up to parity as a player reached, say, Dangerous.

Let's face it, by the time a player reaches Dangerous, NPCs are currently little more than a minor annoyance so a greater likelihood of meeting Dangerous/Deadly/Elite NPCs would probably be a welcome change.

That presumes that the player is interested in combat in the first place - in a game where two of the three Elite ranks can be achieved without firing a shot in combat.

I suppose a player would be able to guarantee not to meet them simply by keeping their combat rank low....

 

[Stealthie]

How often does that update?
Does an influx of new players lead to an open season for PvP?

An influx of new players would only ever serve to make the galaxy safer since it'd mean that the proportion of Dangerous/Deadly/Elite players reduced proportionally.
But, as I said, it'd probably be best if the system was "damped" so that newbies got an easier time until they reached a reasonable ranking.

As for how often such a system might update, I'd like to think it'd be possible to do it in real-time.
More realistically, an adjustment every week, at the server tick, would be fine.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

An influx of new players would only ever serve to make the galaxy safer

That's kind of my point. An influx of new players and the old hands suddenly have an NPC gold rush on their hands.
I think the current "graded" system is a better way to go, but perhaps they could be made a bit more challenging.

 

[Stealthie]

Isn't this determined by mission level rather than player level ?

To a limited extent.

If, for example, you take on an Elite-ranked cargo mission when you're Competent you might get attacked by Dangerous Dropships.
Take on a similar mission when you're Elite and it'll be Elite Annie's that attack you.

Main thing, though, is that it'd be ALL ships in the galaxy reflecting the player stat's - and they'd reflect player stat's for hostility too.
Most of the traffic you see would probably be fairly high-ranking but it'd also be cordial.
It'd mostly be when YOU choose to pick a fight (at RESs, NavBuoys and CZs) that you'd face a tougher challenge.

 

[Morbad]

Everywhere in ED is "the wild west" and that only works if everybody wants to be a cowboy - and ED claims to give players the opportunity to take on many other roles as well.

I would be very surprised if most of the real 'wild west' wasn't considerably safer than crowded urban centers of the same era, despite the greater presence of security forces in the latter.

ED's security levels always seemed to be referring to the security response, not the safety of an area. Anarchy systems with no one present are almost absolutely safe, as they should be. High-security tourist traps can be quite dangerous, as they should be.

In a game with optional PvP, why should players in Solo and Private Groups be forced to play at a difficulty level effectively set by other players?

Since only CMDRs can influence any of the persistent setting elements players in Solo and PG are still forced to play at a difficulty level set by others, if they have any interest in any of those mechanisms.

At the other end of the scale there would be, obviously, no security ships in anarchies.

I'd expect security pursuit to follow fugitives until they crossed into another jurisdiction they respected. Depending on the power of the entity represented by these security forces, this could be almost anywhere.

 

[Old Duck]

An influx of new players would only ever serve to make the galaxy safer since it'd mean that the proportion of Dangerous/Deadly/Elite players reduced proportionally.
But, as I said, it'd probably be best if the system was "damped" so that newbies got an easier time until they reached a reasonable ranking.

Seeing all these Harmless T9s and Cutters in Open lately "griefs" my immersion, but on the other hand, I've never felt safer in Open!

Once I get my carrier, I'm going to have to bring out my PvP pirate ship again. There's nothing more fun than pirating a harmless Cutter

(When I say pirating, I mean it - nobody dies when I pirate other players.)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Since only CMDRs can influence any of the persistent setting elements players in Solo and PG are still forced to play at a difficulty level set by others, if they have any interest in any of those mechanisms.

Not in terms of the NPCs that they face though.

 

[Stealthie]

That's kind of my point. An influx of new players and the old hands suddenly have an NPC gold rush on their hands.
I think the current "graded" system is a better way to go, but perhaps they could be made a bit more challenging.

If veterans want to get their jollies exploding NPCs, it's already like shooting fish in a barrel.
The appearance of extra low-ranking NPCs would make little difference.

Also, let's face it, with an average active player-base of, say, 10,000 players, even if we assume that several thousand new people pick up the game at the same time (after an update, perhaps) that's only going to double the likelyhood of meeting a low-ranking NPC.
In reality, of course, anything that draws in new players is also likely to entice lapsed players back too, bringing their own stat's back into play.

Like I say, it'd certainly need tweaking but I think it could make things more interesting than the current system, which is so obviously artificially nerfed.
Long as it was implemented in a way that didn't result in newbies having the poop kicked out of them in their first couple of months.

 

[Old Duck]

Not in terms of the NPCs that they face though.

This is broken IMO. NPC difficulty should be based on mission difficulty or cargo value just as much as it is player combat rating. If I'm carrying a billion credits worth of LTDs, any pirate worth his salt should take note. The idea that a Deadly pirate would look at my "Harmless" rating and say, "He's not worth my time" despite my carrying all those LTDs is just silly.

Of course, the fact these pirates KNOW I'm carrying LTDs ("Rumors were right! Look at that juicy cargo.") is broken in the other direction. As said in another thread, NPC piracy is nonsensical compared to proper PvP piracy.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

If I'm carrying a billion credits worth of LTDs, any pirate worth his salt should take note.

I thought they did do that? \

 

[Old Duck]

I thought they did do that? \

People say NPCs scale with our own combat rating. I've never paid much attention, so I'm just going with the crowd think regarding this. Am I / they wrong?

 

[Maggie_Oz]

People say NPCs scale with our own combat rating.

I'm pretty sure they do. I have very little trouble from NPC's and I am Elite Trade but Harmless combat so they certainly aren't going off my Trade rank.

 

[Stealthie]

This is broken IMO. NPC difficulty should be based on mission difficulty or cargo value just as much as it is player combat rating. If I'm carrying a billion credits worth of LTDs, any pirate worth his salt should take note. The idea that a Deadly pirate would look at my "Harmless" rating and say, "He's not worth my time" despite my carrying all those LTDs is just silly.

Of course, the fact these pirates KNOW I'm carrying LTDs ("Rumors were right! Look at that juicy cargo.") is broken in the other direction. As said in another thread, NPC piracy is nonsensical compared to proper PvP piracy.

See, I'm conflicted here although I agree it's currently a bit broken.

The way I see it, if I'm flying though a high-sec system I shouldn't meet criminal warlords cos, y'know, the local sys-sec should have already exploded them for all the other (notional) criminal stuff they've done and the same local sys-sec should be on hand to explode them if/when they attack you.
I'd say it'd be more plausible if it was tough ships flown by inexperienced outlaws, reflecting the idea that they were previously lawful ships who just couldn't pass up a lucrative opportunity.

Course, it's also plausible that a criminal warlord might track you and then attack you in a suitably remote system.
Which is why I'd like to see some kind of "Stealth" factor adopted.
If you're mining in a ring and you don't see any outlaws (or you explode the ones you do see) how is anybody going to know you're carrying a heap of LTDs at all?
Set it up so you initially have a "detection factor" of, say, 5% and that increases if you fly through busy systems, stop at navbuoys to scan them or dock at stations to refuel.

The idea of mining in a remote, empty, system and then immediately getting an "I've been tracking you..." message is pretty darned unimmersive.
And then you make a 40Ly jump in your Annie and the same bloody FdL or FGS miraculously arrives in the same system just after you do.....

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Disclaimer - I am NOT advocating for Open-Only, I'm just making an observation.

I'm sorry, but if there wasn't an private or solo mode, people would just quit. They wouldn't even try to 'Git Gud', they'd just leave and complain about the game being full of seal clubbers. Even the threat of being ganked (even though statistically it is quite rare), is enough to put people off.

I agree that the game would benefit from open only in certain circumstances (i.e. Certain parts of power-play or CGs) but if it's all open only, we'd see player numbers drop substantially.

This is another of the never-ending arguments!

 

[Rampant]

Don't tell me how to play!

So we definitely appear to agree on the most fundamental point in this entire discussion?

I wasn't telling anyone how to play, anyway. I was "inviting" other players to. There's a significant difference.

Anyway, here's progress for ya. We have an accord in something.

Which essentially leaves a big question mark over this entire discussion, does it not?...

 

[Threeofseven]

As a PvP pirate I’d love open only. However, on the other hand, I don’t wish to tell others how to play the game so I couldn’t really support doing away with solo/pg. BUT, one thing that is ridiculous is being able to attack the bgs in solo. I think if players in open are in a bgs fight with solo/pg players, the open players should have an influence boost for equal effort.

 

[Stealthie]

As a PvP pirate I’d love open only. However, on the other hand, I don’t wish to tell others how to play the game so I couldn’t really support doing away with solo/pg. BUT, one thing that is ridiculous is being able to attack the bgs in solo. I think if players in open are in a bgs fight with solo/pg players, the open players should have an influence boost for equal effort.

It's undeniable that's a problem, although I suspect it's one of those things where the solution might be more convoluted than it first appears.

Clearly(?), FDev created the BGS to influence the status of the galaxy in all modes, simply to make it appear more "alive", so it stands to reason that it should be possible to influence the BGS in all modes.
It seems like the real issue isn't so much the fact that players in Solo/PGs can influence the BGS but more the problems that start when a faction operating in Solo/PG comes into conflict with a faction operating in Open.

So, the first problem, there, is identifying and regulating when that's happening.
I mean, if you're part of a PF that's operating in Open, I don't really see why it should be easier for you to influence an "NPC system" than a PF who's attempting to influence another "NPC system" in a PG or Solo.

But then, added to that, if a PF is attempting to influence the BGS, in Open or a PG/Solo, and I rock up and happen to take a couple of missions that'll also impact the BGS, does that suddenly turn the conflict into a "PvP" scenario, thus changing the criteria for victory?

Also, I suspect there'd also be the likelihood of shenanigans if there was some imbalance between the amount of influence possible in Open vs Solo/PG.
Basically, I foresee the possibility that a PF could make use of buddies to earn PvP kills in Open and, thus, artificially boost their influence on the BGS.


Honestly, I suspect the BGS is beyond regulating in any way that'd allow it to work reasonably for players in both Solo/PG and Open.
The next candidate is, of course, PP but then you'll get people wailing (justifiably, I suppose) that they enjoy doing that in Solo/PG too.

Maybe what's needed is some kind of new alternative to PP - something that provides decent rewards as incentives to get involved - that is created from the outset to be a PvP environment?
Perhaps make use of the existing PP figureheads, have them set up "Fleets" and then PFs and individuals could join a fleet and take part, in Open, in conflicts where various chunks of the Bubble (perhaps based on territory ruled by factions loyal to each PP figurehead) are up for grabs?

You join a Fleet, vote to attack, say, Deciat and if you win then your Fleet takes control of every system/asset controlled by the Deciat Green Party.
As a result of that, every player in the Fleet would get benefits such as using fewer mat's when getting engineering done at Auntie Felicity's and they'd also get better prices at the shipyards and markets in every station run by the Deciat Green party as well as reduced costs for repairs, refuelling and rearming.

Overall, the idea would be to leave the BGS as the tangled mess that it is, let PP become some kind of "political" thing and set up the new thing as a "military" operation.

 

[[Cancelled Consoleer] boppa_]

Disclaimer - I am NOT advocating for Open-Only, I'm just making an observation.

Today I decided to join the Tritium Truckers, in hopes to make some meager credits to help me slowly progress to my goal of someday owning a fleet carrier. The best prices were between two outposts, so I configured my Python for cargo running and started my trucking - in a private group. Was I worried about gankers? A little, but not terribly so. No, what I wanted to avoid was an insane line of CMDRs all competing for that one medium pad. And that's when it dawned on me - everyone lining up for a great deal is realistic, and I'm basically "cheating" (figuratively, not literally) by creating my own parallel universe Walmart on Black Friday where there are no lines.

If the game was Open-only, these lines would force players to spread out and accept less than the perfect exchange rates in trade, thus bringing balance to the game. It would also bring legitimate PvP piracy (something I enjoy), and yes, ganking, which would also balance the game. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, heck it's not a solution at all (modes are here to stay), but I do think that a large contributor to the success of all these gold rushes is that we can create our own private realities where we don't have to deal with long lines, criminals, and other realistic challenges. And because of this, I do think the game is less than what it could be.

And yet, here I am trading in the safety of a PG / Solo, so I guess I want a FC more than I want realism at the moment, LOL.

EDIT - I just found a route between two large stations, but the theory still applies I believe. Just consider some of the traffic jams we used to see during community goals.

I don't think you should be able to effect the shared elements of the game, e.g. the BGS, if you're not playing in the shared mode of the game.

It would be the ideal compromise - ok play in solo or PG and make as much money as you want, but if you're not willing to share the galaxy with other commanders, then you can't impact shared features such as power play, BGS, trade supply/demand, etc.

 

[Old Duck]

It would be the ideal compromise - ok play in solo or PG and make as much money as you want, but if you're not willing to share the galaxy with other commanders, then you can't impact shared features such as power play, BGS, trade supply/demand, etc.

Along that line of thinking, nor should assets cross over (no earning a Cutter in Solo and then bringing over into Open). Again, with your line of thinking in mind, modes should be chosen when you first start your "save" - what starts in Solo stays in Solo (and the same with Open). This limitation should be balanced by offering multiple CMDR "slots" per single purchase of ED.

Along your line of thinking, of course.. As others have said, the boat left the harbor and the docks set on fire long ago.

 

[RamirezKurita]

Maybe what's needed is some kind of new alternative to PP - something that provides decent rewards as incentives to get involved - that is created from the outset to be a PvP environment?
Perhaps make use of the existing PP figureheads, have them set up "Fleets" and then PFs and individuals could join a fleet and take part, in Open, in conflicts where various chunks of the Bubble (perhaps based on territory ruled by factions loyal to each PP figurehead) are up for grabs?

You join a Fleet, vote to attack, say, Deciat and if you win then your Fleet takes control of every system/asset controlled by the Deciat Green Party.
As a result of that, every player in the Fleet would get benefits such as using fewer mat's when getting engineering done at Auntie Felicity's and they'd also get better prices at the shipyards and markets in every station run by the Deciat Green party as well as reduced costs for repairs, refuelling and rearming.

Overall, the idea would be to leave the BGS as the tangled mess that it is, let PP become some kind of "political" thing and set up the new thing as a "military" operation.

That's pretty much the main suggestion I make whenever someone suggests open-only PP. Copy+Paste the current powerplay mechanics, rename things to something like "Shadow Conflict" to represent that it is a disagreement between Pilot's Federation splinters rather than a larger-scope engagement, remove the rewards from it, and voila, you have a (somewhat, PP is still extremely barebones) working open-only set of gameplay mechanics. Players who want PvP have their special Pilot's Federation Shadow Conflict, while those that want to influence the story, get modules or other perks can still stick with PowerPlay even in Solo.