Modes How to make open attractive to solo players: Mission Rebuy

[Jockey79]

Difficult to agree with that proposal straight off the bat. Although I do think that the current "balance" of risk and reward is really poorly designed.
Would need to think on it a little more.

Thinking out loud...

I've just yesterday, on my 8 week old alt account, bought a Krait and all the modules for 2 discrete builds. My second new ship after the Cobra. Rebuy is around 5MCr. Not unreasonable if it were a dumbass mistake on my part. However, if I had been ganked by a meta-wing on my return from an exploration trip a few days ago, in my Cobra, the rebuy would have been peanuts. The killer is that I was carrying 160MCr+ of data that took 6 weeks of time invested to acquire.

It isn't the rebuy that needs addressing, per se, but some mechanism needs to be put in place to balance the game.

Yours Aye

Mark H

That's why I put "without losing anything", because like you say; it's not always the rebuy.
Loss of missions / data / cargo can be the most painful thing. All for what? So some random person can get their jollies, that's not a good enough reason.

Removing all loss when the death is caused by a fellow CMDR solves that issue.
The NPCs can still give you a bad day, but as far as those hollow boxes go - no worries.
People might also be a bit more sociable, and not run off as soon as someone in a combat ship jumps in to the system.

 

[wrmiller]

I'd love to, but as I keep being the topic of someones posts and they have been left to run wild with it - not sure how we can stay on topic.

Yea, the application of 'enforcement' around here is spotty at best. But as soon as you respond...

 

[Jockey79]

Yea, the application of 'enforcement' around here is spotty at best. But as soon as you respond...

I've noticed.

But as discussing Mod actions (or lack thereof) is against the rules and Frontier are not going to make any meaningful change to Open to attract those who currently prefer Solo / PG.
It leaves this thread being rather pointless.

Oh I know how to answer the thread title;

A) Only let one person play open mode at a time

Anyone got more suggestions?

 

[Curvemn17]

Looks to me like you're being deliberately disingenuous.

There *is* a vast difference between player and NPC attacks and either you know this to be true (and are deliberately ignoring it), or you are unaware how NPC engagements are *programmed*. Of the two options it appears to me that the 2nd is less likely, but I cannot clearly state that as a fact. Perhaps you haven't fully analysed the NPC programming...

So let's take a closer look.

1. In the majority of random hostile engagements initiated by NPCs, the NPCs display some modicum of *level matchmaking*. What do I mean by this? Well, a Mostly Harmless Cobra pilot is far less likely to be interdicted and engaged by an Elite Anaconda NPC than a Dangerous Cobra player pilot is. There is some "sportsman-like" pre-emptive programming occurring in the game code to make this happen. It appears to be on a bell curve-like distribution, where the centre of the curve is roughly equivalent to the player "skill and equipment" level.

2. "Hostiles may be sent against you" missions - there is a second level of match-making programming that supercedes item 1. above. The level of the mission has an input into the likely threat level a player will face against NPCs. Choose an Elite level black box retrieval mission and you may be interdicted by a wing of 4 mid-to-high level Vultures. It's in the programming...

Finally, and MOST IMPORTANTLY:

3. The NPC programming is designed in order that the player will have some fun. That's the *intent* of the programmer. (Might be obvious to some readers why this is the case, but clearly this is being disregarded by those that argue about "intent".) A game designer will *always* strive that his game program provides for some FUN.


Now let's look at player engagements by comparison and analyse the differences:

1. I can only say from my own experience, but I'd lay a large wager that the vast, vast, vast majority of player interdiction and random engagements follow the exact same pattern. Namely, that I have *never* been engaged by a player with a lesser combat rank than me, *and* a lesser combat ship type, *and* a lesser combat outfitting than me. Often, it is clear that they also have far superior engineering, and often they are not single CMDRs.

In direct contrast to NPC engagements, the bell curve is positioned so far out of the target player's skill and equipment level that it explicit *intention* of the interdiction player(s) is not to provide any sportsman like chance for their target. This is called *intent*. It is premeditatively intended to be as asymmetric as the hostile player or group can make it.

2. Whereas a player has a level of choice, in mission taking, about the level of resistance that they will face during that mission from NPCs, a human player adversary *intentionally* removes that choice from the player they target. See 1. just above.

Finally, the IMPORTANT part:

3. Whereas the programming intent is for a hostile NPC EVENT to provide FUN for the player being attacked, a player who initiates a hostile event against another CMDR is not doing so for the fun of their target. This can range on a sliding scale from a. my target's fun is of no concern, b. the more of an unfun event that I can make this engagement for my target, the more fun I will have myself. Notice the *intent* ranging from "neutral" to "negative" (malice) , but not having the capacity to swing into "positive" for the targeted player. Even Cari , who comes across as more of a caring type, has written in this thread that she simply doesn't care about her target.


It is therefore, as has been mentioned *several* times previously, very much about the intent of the game's programmers versus the intent of hostile players that makes such a difference to the hostile event itself.

The game programming attempts to provide an enriching experience.
Hostile players, on the other hand, attempt to provide an enriching experience for themselves, often at the direct (and intentional) expense of other players.

Yours Aye

Mark H

This is one of a whole range of reasons why some players prefer PG and Solo instead of frequenting Open.

Nothing disengemious in my posts at all. Again, you're making speculative opinions just like the rest of the trolls in this thread do. Your assumption about the scaling is based solely on your feelings and experiences and fails to account for those that have positive experiences. For example, some like the thrill of another cmdr pirating them.

I’ve no interest anymore in why anyone here provides whatever mode they prefer. I also disagree entirely that a pixelated explosion is different depending on who pulled the trigger. Bottom line is most complain that they lost hours of work which implies that NPCs are of no consequence and when faced with adversity they would rather complain about the merits of that adversity. You do you.

As for the rest of the trolls that will respond I don’t care. Respond away. Expect little to no response.

 

[wrmiller]

Looks to me like you're being deliberately disingenuous.

There *is* a vast difference between player and NPC attacks and either you know this to be true (and are deliberately ignoring it), or you are unaware how NPC engagements are *programmed*. Of the two options it appears to me that the 2nd is less likely, but I cannot clearly state that as a fact. Perhaps you haven't fully analysed the NPC programming...

So let's take a closer look.

1. In the majority of random hostile engagements initiated by NPCs, the NPCs display some modicum of *level matchmaking*. What do I mean by this? Well, a Mostly Harmless Cobra pilot is far less likely to be interdicted and engaged by an Elite Anaconda NPC than a Dangerous Cobra player pilot is. There is some "sportsman-like" pre-emptive programming occurring in the game code to make this happen. It appears to be on a bell curve-like distribution, where the centre of the curve is roughly equivalent to the player "skill and equipment" level.

2. "Hostiles may be sent against you" missions - there is a second level of match-making programming that supercedes item 1. above. The level of the mission has an input into the likely threat level a player will face against NPCs. Choose an Elite level black box retrieval mission and you may be interdicted by a wing of 4 mid-to-high level Vultures. It's in the programming...

Finally, and MOST IMPORTANTLY:

3. The NPC programming is designed in order that the player will have some fun. That's the *intent* of the programmer. (Might be obvious to some readers why this is the case, but clearly this is being disregarded by those that argue about "intent".) A game designer will *always* strive that his game program provides for some FUN.


Now let's look at player engagements by comparison and analyse the differences:

1. I can only say from my own experience, but I'd lay a large wager that the vast, vast, vast majority of player interdiction and random engagements follow the exact same pattern. Namely, that I have *never* been engaged by a player with a lesser combat rank than me, *and* a lesser combat ship type, *and* a lesser combat outfitting than me. Often, it is clear that they also have far superior engineering, and often they are not single CMDRs.

In direct contrast to NPC engagements, the bell curve is positioned so far out of the target player's skill and equipment level that it explicit *intention* of the interdiction player(s) is not to provide any sportsman like chance for their target. This is called *intent*. It is premeditatively intended to be as asymmetric as the hostile player or group can make it.

2. Whereas a player has a level of choice, in mission taking, about the level of resistance that they will face during that mission from NPCs, a human player adversary *intentionally* removes that choice from the player they target. See 1. just above.

Finally, the IMPORTANT part:

3. Whereas the programming intent is for a hostile NPC EVENT to provide FUN for the player being attacked, a player who initiates a hostile event against another CMDR is not doing so for the fun of their target. This can range on a sliding scale from a. my target's fun is of no concern, b. the more of an unfun event that I can make this engagement for my target, the more fun I will have myself. Notice the *intent* ranging from "neutral" to "negative" (malice) , but not having the capacity to swing into "positive" for the targeted player. Even Cari , who comes across as more of a caring type, has written in this thread that she simply doesn't care about her target.


It is therefore, as has been mentioned *several* times previously, very much about the intent of the game's programmers versus the intent of hostile players that makes such a difference to the hostile event itself.

The game programming attempts to provide an enriching experience.
Hostile players, on the other hand, attempt to provide an enriching experience for themselves, often at the direct (and intentional) expense of other players.

Yours Aye

Mark H

This is one of a whole range of reasons why some players prefer PG and Solo instead of frequenting Open.

And...that's a wrap.

Repped.

 

[Mouse]

Discuss the post not the poster please.

If this is true then I request that you go back and do a SERIOUS scrub through the forum and remove all of his posts about Jockey and NOT about the topic.

 

[Rampant]

Nothing disengemious in my posts at all. Again, you're making speculative opinions just like the rest of the trolls in this thread do. Your assumption about the scaling is based solely on your feelings and experiences and fails to account for those that have positive experiences. For example, some like the thrill of another cmdr pirating them.

I’ve no interest anymore in why anyone here provides whatever mode they prefer. I also disagree entirely that a pixelated explosion is different depending on who pulled the trigger. Bottom line is most complain that they lost hours of work which implies that NPCs are of no consequence and when faced with adversity they would rather complain about the merits of that adversity. You do you.

As for the rest of the trolls that will respond I don’t care. Respond away. Expect little to no response.

I said that it *looks like* your being disingenuous, because that's the way it reads to me.

One thing is for certain though, you are being deliberately obtuse by attempting to narrow the narrative down to *just* the explosion and *just* the result.
I suppose that this is the cherry picked area that your responses actually make sense, while deliberately disregarding the bigger picture. Namely, the *experience* a player was having prior to the explosion. Whether that experience was *fun* for them, or provided any worthwhile challenge or whether it would enrich their overall game experience in a positive way. Or not.
In attempting to narrow down the narrative to *just* the end game, you are subverting the entire point of why people play computer games in the first place. Let me tell you, with utter conviction, that it is not all about the end result - and rather, it is all about the experience which leads to the result that matters most.
You've heard the term griefing before, right? Well griefing is not all about the result, it is about ensuring that the target has as negative an experience as possible prior to the end result. It is all about inflicting a bad exoerience and revelling in the delivery of that bad experience, and not simply the outright end destruction. Same deal. Don't try to narrow the narrative down to an area where you feel you can validate your own agenda. That won't work. No sir. We are all about the bigger picture. Restricting the narrative is simply being disingenuous.

Slàinte Mhath

Mark H

 

[Darkfyre99]

I said that it *looks like* your being disingenuous, because that's the way it reads to me.

One thing is for certain though, you are being deliberately obtuse by attempting to narrow the narrative down to *just* the explosion and *just* the result.
I suppose that this is the cherry picked area that your responses actually make sense, while deliberately disregarding the bigger picture. Namely, the *experience* a player was having prior to the explosion. Whether that experience was *fun* for them, or provided any worthwhile challenge or whether it would enrich their overall game experience in a positive way. Or not.
In attempting to narrow down the narrative to *just* the end game, you are subverting the entire point of why people play computer games in the first place. Let me tell you, with utter conviction, that it is not all about the end result - and rather, it is all about the experience which leads to the result that matters most.
You've heard the term griefing before, right? Well griefing is not all about the result, it is about ensuring that the target has as negative an experience as possible prior to the end result. It is all about inflicting a bad exoerience and revelling in the delivery of that bad experience, and not simply the outright end destruction. Same deal. Don't try to narrow the narrative down to an area where you feel you can validate your own agenda. That won't work. No sir. We are all about the bigger picture. Restricting the narrative is simply being disingenuous.

Slàinte Mhath

Mark H

^^^
This.

I’m in a bit of an odd position when it comes to PvP, in the sense that while I don’t enjoy PvP for PvP’s sake, I do think that PvP should have a place in my game experience. Unfortunately, the Open-world nature of games like Elite: Dangerous, which are my favorite type of online games, ensures that PvP generally sucks, since unless you enjoy PvP for PvP’s sake, PvP encounters will inevitably so asymmetrical that your decicision matrix isn’t “fight or flight,” which would actually be interesting, but “flight or die.”

Of course, IMO one thing ED has gotten right, PvP wise,is that not only are players not penalized for their mode choices, ensuring that there’s fewer “emergent content providers” in Open because their natural targets are in modes other than Open, but the game mechanics ensure that at the start of such encounters, before a weapon can ever be fired, you get a chance to evade it entirely, and no amount of grinding can give a player an overwhelming edge, ensuring that its mostly a contest of pure skill vs skill.

 

[Mouse]

Nothing disengemious in my posts at all. Again, you're making speculative opinions just like the rest of the trolls in this thread do. Your assumption about the scaling is based solely on your feelings and experiences and fails to account for those that have positive experiences. For example, some like the thrill of another cmdr pirating them.

I’ve no interest anymore in why anyone here provides whatever mode they prefer. I also disagree entirely that a pixelated explosion is different depending on who pulled the trigger. Bottom line is most complain that they lost hours of work which implies that NPCs are of no consequence and when faced with adversity they would rather complain about the merits of that adversity. You do you.

As for the rest of the trolls that will respond I don’t care. Respond away. Expect little to no response.

I have to ask, why is it that anyone who disagrees with YOUR viewpoint...is a troll?

 

[Curvemn17]

I have to ask, why is it that anyone who disagrees with YOUR viewpoint...is a troll?

That I actually will answer. It’s not anyone that disagrees with my posts that I’m referring to. It’s the typical group that any post in regards to open will attract. It’s the typical group that responds to anything pvp related even tho they don’t participate in any of those functions. They have some of the highest number of posts and are well aware of who they are. They are the forum trolls and if you talk to others outside of this forum they know exactly who they are.

 

[Mouse]

That I actually will answer. It’s not anyone that disagrees with my posts that I’m referring to. It’s the typical group that any post in regards to open will attract. It’s the typical group that responds to anything pvp related even tho they don’t participate in any of those functions. They have some of the highest number of posts and are well aware of who they are. They are the forum trolls and if you talk to others outside of this forum they know exactly who they are.

Then I guess by your definition I am a troll to since when PVP related stuff steps into PVE related stuff and affects it I have been known to speak up along with others. And having the "highest" number of posts doesn't mean they are trolls even though you think they are. What it means is they are involved in the community and care about the game. I also find it interesting that people who have PVPed agree with Rampant's comments even though you seem to be certain that he is a troll.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

That I actually will answer. It’s not anyone that disagrees with my posts that I’m referring to. It’s the typical group that any post in regards to open will attract. It’s the typical group that responds to anything pvp related even tho they don’t participate in any of those functions. They have some of the highest number of posts and are well aware of who they are. They are the forum trolls and if you talk to others outside of this forum they know exactly who they are.

"You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice."

If I could do it. Id rep this a million times.

I've got some razorback cubeo bacon around here somewhere....

 

[Mouse]

"You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice."

If I could do it. Id rep this a million times.

I've got some razorback cubeo bacon around here somewhere....

dang can't even find something original

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That I actually will answer. It’s not anyone that disagrees with my posts that I’m referring to. It’s the typical group that any post in regards to open will attract. It’s the typical group that responds to anything pvp related even tho they don’t participate in any of those functions. They have some of the highest number of posts and are well aware of who they are. They are the forum trolls and if you talk to others outside of this forum they know exactly who they are.

Look ma, Ad Hominem!

Easier to resort to this than actually engage in a discussion isn't it?

 

[Theodrid]

"You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice."

If I could do it. Id rep this a million times.

I've got some razorback cubeo bacon around here somewhere....

All you gotta do is replace the end of that post you want to double rep with Mobius instead of PVP and it sums you up to a tee in this thread and others 90's, making you the troll also, still wanna double rep it?