Fragment of an official statement; made by JFK:
"and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept".
Made more than 20 years before the 1st Elite game and has more in common with open play, that anything dreamed up by the 'It's not fair and I want' brigade; we have here today.
The way see it is your average Joe is either into pvp and all that comes with it or thier not. The not seems to make up the vast majority of average Joes who play ED.
Personaly none of the above would make me click open even if it ment I might get some extras, if I want company in my games I dont play this one.
The thing is theres nothing and none to fight for, if it had purpose then yeah.
To be honest I don't even know why 'log out' is allowed while you're in combat, it shouldn't be allowed like at any other MMO,
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.
If your claim is thatYou personal skill/luck have nothing to do with the question at hand.
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?
Be glad that those changes would create a balanced choice for you. Where there is no such thing present for you at the moment.
But I do. And balanced ones at that.True, I do like choices.
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.So should trade income. I do not know how it happens ATM, I had never traded in a wing.
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.
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.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.
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.
For those who do opt in to the PvP experience, there will be some slight bonuses such as extra experience gain or reputation gain to offset the additional risk. The nature and magnitude of these bonuses will undergo extensive tuning, with the goal of not making anyone feel obligated to participate in PvP if they dislike that gameplay, while counterbalancing the loss in efficiency for those who do.
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.
"We should compensate the advantages of playing in Solo for people that want to encourage more option for PvP."
Elite Dangerous is a MMO with a Risk/Reward based gameplay. Yet you can have the rewards without really taking the risks in Solo/PG.
...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.
But I do. And balanced ones at that.
Balance depends on who's finger is on the scale
Atm, the choice is same reward with some risk and same reward without risk. Everything looks balanced to you?