Modes Open mode balancing proposal
- Thread starter CMDR EDGEL0RD
- Start date
- Status
Have nothing to do with. One way is easier and faster, one is more difficult and slower. Both accomplish exactly the same goals. Which one Congress would approve?
Exactly my point though.
People who are against it are predominantly solo players, which are PvE or casual PvE ones.
Having this discussion here is like fighting slavery in the Confederate south. People who like current state of things of course are against any change in it. While I am glad that it is not like fighting communism in the USSR and I am not banned already, your actions are no less shameful.
Be glad that those changes would create a balanced choice for you. Where there is no such thing present for you at the moment.
1) because there's a difference between being in combat and being ganked in an unarmed ship. I would be quite happy for logout to be prevented for agreed PvP play, but PvP can only really take place between two or more players who agree to fight, most of the people who logout never agreed to fight in the first place and are therefore not PvP'ing, just trying to escape.
2) Like any other MMO, like say LOTRO, oh sorry you can't attack other players in LOTRO unless they agree to fight, you must mean like Atlantica Online, oh no sorry you can only fight other people if they accept your challenge.
You see a lot of MMO's only have "consensual PvP", and you don't have that here, what you have is non-consensual PvP, which essentially consists of murder hobo's in uber engineered ships attacking unarmed explorers and the like, and you want to make it impossible for them to escape even though they are guaranteed to lose. So sorry, that's a non-starter.
This is called difference between PvP and PvE games/servers.
While some people hate to be ganked, other players choose to having risk of being attacked at any moment, overcome it and then obliterate every single Higby who made their leveling painful. This is a valid choice of a game drive, and of a game mode to play on, as it yields arguably better game expirience.
But ability in ED to hot-swap between modes, the fact that all actions happen and affect the same universe and in the same way, and risk of leveling in that mode is not counterbalanced with anything, make people who like to play on PvP servers look like complete fools in ED.
Changes I propose would create actual free PvP layer on top of Open. Where you cannot combat log whenever you want to. I think that actual PvE layer of Open can be created as well.
If your claim is that
- Open is less intrinsically "efficient" than Solo
- Open should therefore have a compensatory bonus to make it as "efficient" as Solo
so that "efficiency above all" players don't feel they "have" to choose Solo even if they really "want" to be in Open
...then measurements of how much less efficient it is are I would think exactly relevant to the question at hand.
If you used me as the baseline, you would conclude that Solo players should get a 1-2% "no friends bonus" to earnings. Presumably your experience has been somewhat different and you've lost money instead as a result of being in Open.
Neither of us, of course, are statistically representative of players as a whole ... so how would the level be set fairly?
Thank you for constructive critique at last.
While having no friends is a personal problem for everyone, this is not invalid.
All missions should become wing ones and share gains in some set by mission taker proportions with each participant. I had stated that more than once.
So should trade income. I do not know how it happens ATM, I had never traded in a wing.
That way, playing solo would be counterbalanced by increased gains.
For Open though, I am ok with risks being not entierly covered by returns. While 100% compensation might be fair, this is difficult to balance. As player will dodge risk, I suggest accepting a figure of difference in income between most profitable route by EDDB and third one. This was exactly my reasoning while I was trading early in ED, as pirates can check that data as well.
... EDDB is dead ATM, or I cannot access it from my workplace at least. But I am sure this figure will be about 3-5%. Which would be correct to apply. And I suggest this would be valid to all types of activities.
Again, the goal here is to balance out playing against gankers and without them whatsoever.
This excludes CGs and possibly Rare trade and dealings with popular hubs. Those activities have different approach suggested.
Speaking of friends, I doubt any "leveling" squadrons would appear as things are now.
Last edited:
True, I do like choices.
But I do. And balanced ones at that.
You get a bonus voucher equal to 5% of any wingmate's trade *profit* if you're in the instance when they sell. It's only really useful for wing mining as everywhere else the profit/tonne is low enough that 5% of that is negligible.
The *bigger* potential bonus from wing trading is that you can, for example, wing up a Cobra III with three Type-9s, use the Cobra's high supercruise agility to quickly reach the station, then nav lock the T-9s right on to it so they can skip all the final supercruise approach. With the right organisation you could probably get a very efficient hand-off approach going at a CG or somewhere else you had a heavily used A-B route, and get at least a couple of extra round trips into each hour.
I don't know if anyone really organises that, but I've been able to do it spontaneously at CGs sometimes to save a bit of time.
Do you wanna say that having Cobra and T9s helps you to not lose all of those T9s at CGs at busy hours? Don't get me wrong, it is a way to reduce your risks.
Yet you will have way less risk to lose one of your ships inside a PG made up of your wing alone.
rearrange into a well-known saying:
bone / a / dog / a / with / like
bone / a / dog / a / with / like
Yes, it could help defend against attack by making it much easier to avoid spending time vulnerable in supercruise, and meaning that you don't need to care about aligning correctly as you get close to destination. The last few CGs I was at there weren't any hostile pilots in Open anyway - maybe they were all in Solo for efficiency? - so it was more the benefit of being able to save a minute or so per approach and stuff goods into the station faster.
(Though if you're actually *losing* the T-9s rather than having them slightly delayed by needing to high-wake on some trips, fit better shields and put 4 pips to them...)
Sure, you're far less likely to run into problems in a PG compared with Open, and you get all the benefits of being able to team up *except* that your potential pool of allies is much reduced. For people who always play with the same group of friends that may not be a problem, for people like me who just team up and help out as and when there's other people around doing the same thing that's a real problem.
Now it's true that in Open you also meet more hostile pilots ... but since none of the last 500 or so people I've met in Open have even slightly tried to kill me - and nor, by and large, have they reacted as if my ship was any threat to them, even when I'm flying a PvP-spec FdL - I reckon the odds are in my favour here.
You are OK with them having no shield and D rated modules in PG. You are not as well in Open.
With current state of things, there are more bounty hunters (including me) at CGs than pirates/griefers. Not like a year ago or so. Yet still:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/425173-Combat-logging-v-engineering
what is this then?
ATM one or two people actualy haul something in the Open, and they are newbies or people which just want some adrenaline and have nothing to loose from it. Thus, there are less pirates/griefers. Even then, it goes differently from time to time.
And with those changes, things there are sure to get "livelier". And I am ok with that. Better than playing full-on PvE game which PvP people are forced to play now. I might even get 2nd account to "level up" again without spoiling stuff for myself.
Last edited:
in my opinion, in red it's a personal addition, it's not blizzard politics.
he prefers to offer equipment for PVP and equipment for PVE to differentiate, rather than favoring the PVP over the other, which in my opinion is better yet.
I think rather unite PVP and PVE is to maintain a large base of players on the same server, to reduce the son of waiting.
this being all that has been discussed so much on this forum and especially at the very beginning of the conception of this game, I do not think that it will change..
no one pays subscription for this game. I do not think they will make such big changes.
Last edited:
You can copypaste text into Google.
And those changes are not as big as they might look.
The fact that there is no subscription saddens me as well.
There is no favoring really. It is merely some incentive for people to preserve their ways in order for them to get their preferred expirience.
Last edited:
...Except that no one is forcing you to play in Open. Again, the argument being put forth is Exclusive instead of being Inclusive. The only difference between Open and the other modes is that you agree to additional game restrictions in how players interact.
The only difference between game modes is the risk of inconsensual PvP. Which is a good part of experience actually, to overcome everything and then get back on your offenders.
But the fact that this risk is optional and completely unrewarded while the money you have to pay for bigger ships is the same make taking that risk a completely act.
And the majority of people chosing Solo because of flawed options design make this game a full PvE one. Adding an optional layer of rewards would counterbalance that.
Balance depends on who's finger is on the scale
Atm, the choice is the same reward with some risk and the same reward without any risk. Everything looks balanced to you?
Last edited:
The basic parameters of mode parity were spelled out before 1.0 was released.
Ever since, anyone who plays in Open has been whining about it.
90% of the arguments just boil down to PvP players wanting to find more live targets.
I play in Open and have no complaints regarding which mode you want to play in for whatever reason you chose.
But - as always - some insist that everyone should "play it their way."
This is all well worn ground traversed since before release - nothing new.
FD's position has been clear on this topic for going on 5 years
- Status