Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Nope (and it's not my Dangerous mode - others came up with it earlier in the thread - I'm just running with it).
Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking
- Thread starter Hole in Head
- Start date
But that takes up a slot. It also means that the FSD default engineering is not just long range + long range experimental.
Repairs are the same, expensive or you use a limpet / AMFU. Both cost internal space.
Those ships are specialized for one thing only. It's expected that if they encounter something that outside of that narrow scope they'll suffer greatly for it. If you need to fly in dangerous areas when your ship is specialized for areas where there is no danger, this is an expected outcome.
I mean... that's how it should work, right? The whole point of combat forces is to do combat against another force. All the better if the opposing force is poorly equipped to handle it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
A slot that can be changed out trivially in a friendly Carrier.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Sounds like only those players who prefer combat get to optimise their ship for their preferred role - everyone else has to compromise because of those who optimise for combat....
If my experience is accurate a PVE mode with players will leave the PVP mode with players largely barren.
Which is why an expansion to CQC is again the best option.
If you don't want that sort of interaction, maybe its better to consider something else.
Its not PvP thats the point here: its outcomes of actions. Its not consistent if an NPC can be robbed but a player can't.
? If actions have to be pre-agreed thats not really a game that lives up to the box blurb really.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Maybe, maybe not - Open belongs to all players, after all.
Outcomes of PvP interactions - quite different from interacting with an NPC generated to entertain.
The box blurb doesn't adequately explain how the game really works. It used to say "or just hunt other commanders" and people complained that they couldn't hunt all CMDRs because not all players would play with them That bit got removed though.
Which means more inconvenience for the attacker, and presumes a friendly carrier is about. That, and if this in the credit scarce environment how are they going to afford 5 billion? Carriers are set to deter commanders with notoriety as well, and without knowing someone you'll have to go to them (more fuel and repair costs).
Well some more so than others if you can log out at any time, consequence free.
At a BGS level they are identical, just one is AI and instanced.
Well they need to clarify it more then, because those who hunt for piracy are 50/50 on getting anything and someone not logging. That, and having Powerplay merits made indestructible because of the same issue.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In a credit scarce environment, a Carrier couldn't possibly cost 5B Cr.
Some Carriers are set to refuse docking to notorious CMDRs - some aren't. I'd expect that some players would either own the Carrier themselves (using one of their CMDRs) or be offered safe haven in a sympathetic player's Carrier.
Then there's the fact that credits can be transferred through a Carrier - currently at 2.3M Cr./t nett - so a Carrier owning sponsor could bankroll gankers trivially.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The rules of Open are the same for all players.
Naively, yes - however one is a real person and the other is not - which makes a fundamental difference.
The marketing does not control how players play the game, neither does Frontier. Each player has their own choices to make - and they don't need to do what any other players wants them to do if they don't want to.
Combat ships also need to compromise loadouts to the niche they wish to fill. Going pirating? Need to sacrifice defenses for hatchbreakers, cargo, etc. Trying to achieve space superiority? That's literally all you'll be able to do, no cargo, no ability to pirate otherwise you risk losing a combat advantage.
But thats the thing- they can because traders, bounty hunters and successful pirates make cash- a carrier could cost 1 billion or 500 million in this case, its still out of a griefers league unless the griefer grinds too, meaning they aren't griefing.
Which is fine, but you have to find one, and for the FC owner to want to stay there. Plus with so many carriers about it does not guarantee one will be nearby due to parking space.
Thats up to the person with the cash- and there is nothing to stop FD limiting that in this thought experiment.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Only one in the wing needs hatchbreakers and cargo racks.The spoils can be shared in the Carrier.
But the outcome (logging) favours the person being robbed because they get to keep what they are transporting.
If you want something to be fair you can't have rules for NPCs and not players, especially since the BGS and Powerplay is player driven.
It attracts and informs players as to what the experience is and what to expect. I wonder how an honest blurb would be?
"Friendly fire is always on, but it has no consequences as you can simply opt out of danger".
Assuming you're in a wing. Same could be said about the cargo runners. If they want to run a hyper specialized ship to maximize cargo, they can be winged up with people to run interference to stop attackers before they can get interdicted.
So you would be quite happy to destroy my game mode? I actually like (a lot) to meet players and have the excitement of possible dangerous encounters and without that danger it wouldn't be the same, but I would only engage in PvP when there is a roleplay reason for it, including but not only PvP piracy. So you are now part of the 'force other people to play the game how I want it' club.
You are not making a good case really, because you are actually showing what team gameplay is possible if this ever happened. Pirates would love working in gangs, just as bounty hunters against them (paid for by the traders).