Modes Open mode balancing proposal

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

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

I ask again.

You can get some reward without risk, or you can chose to have some risks while getting exactly same reward. What is balanced about this choice?

While risk is a good thing and a good gameplay expirience, who plays poker with one-sided wages?
I like to play poker, but I am not .

 

[Arry]

I ask again.

You can get some reward without risk, or you can chose to have some risks while getting exactly same reward. What is balanced about this choice?

While risk is a good thing and a good gameplay expirience, who plays poker with one-sided wages?
I like to play poker, but I am not .

Elite has never been about 'balance'. You want to play a space game obsessed with 'balance'? Go play Eve.

To a new player, every mode is a risk.

Agreed: You want to trade grind for the credits, to get that must have ship; then solo or private, is probably a better option: But only because there are a few idiots who demand and force you to play 'their way'; in open play.

 

[GJ51]

I ask again.

You can get some reward without risk, or you can chose to have some risks while getting exactly same reward. What is balanced about this choice?

While risk is a good thing and a good gameplay expirience, who plays poker with one-sided wages?
I like to play poker, but I am not .

While there may be some logical merit to your argument, it ignores the fact that PvP is a minor part of the total ED experience and is easily avoidable even for someone who plays in Open. I play in Open 95% of the time, mostly using other modes only when instancing issues and menu load times improve the responsiveness of the game. Even so, it's been months since I was last interdicted, and even then high waking out was just an inconvenience - one that other players choose to not be bothered with, which is their right according to FD.

I don't "fear" PvP and have spent time doing some early on, but it's not what I enjoy doing. Switching modes when it suits me is an option available to anyone and everyone and is therefore "balanced."

Your position is that players should be incentivised to play in your environment or that you deserve a greater reward for playing in Open - thus penalizing anyone who doesn't want to play with you.

We get it.

It's all been said many times over.

Play whatever mode you like - just like everyone else

Balance

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

While there may be some logical merit to your argument, it ignores the fact that PvP is a minor part of the total ED experience and is easily avoidable even for someone who plays in Open. I play in Open 95% of the time, mostly using other modes only when instancing issues and menu load times make it easier for the responsiveness of the game. Even so. it's been months since I was last interdicted, and even then high waking out was just an inconvenience - one that other players choose to not be bothered with, which is their right according to FD.

I don't "fear" PvP and have spent time doing some early on, but it's not what I enjoy doing. Switching modes when it suits me is an option available to anyone and everyone and is therefore "balanced."

Your position is that players should be incentivised to play in your environment or that you deserve a greater reward for playing in Open - thus penalizing anyone who doesn't want to play with you.

We get it.

It's all been said many times over.

Play whatever mode you like - just like everyone else

Balance

Maybe because the balance is so heavily scewed in PvE favor, you do not get interdicted? Where is CODE?
I found myself interdicted all the time while hauling rares in my T6 about two years ago. With no success, as T6 is uninterdictable. And that was expirience I came to ED for.

Being in a dangerous galaxy is not a minor expirience. And this mode switching on the go is the main offender here.

And do you understand that this 1-5% bonus for Open will still leave Solo mode favourable one?

 

[GJ51]

... And that was experience I came to ED for.

And thus YOU have been rewarded as YOU found the experience YOU were looking for.

Enjoy

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

And thus YOU have been rewarded as YOU found the experience YOU were looking for.

Enjoy

And YOU are totaly content when YOU do not even have to make a choice in which mode to play. So some choice for YOU should be added. Or YOU would not have that freedom of choice YOU are talking about.

 

[GJ51]

And YOU are totaly content when YOU do not even have to make a choice in which mode to play. So some choice for YOU should be added. Or YOU would not have that freedom of choice YOU are talking about.

Huh?

I make a choice every time I log in.

I'm content with the way things are. I accepted the terms of play as outlined before ED was released. I didn't sign up so I could change what FD had promised.

I'm not asking for anything.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Huh?

I make a choice every time I log in.

I'm content with the way things are. I accepted the terms of play as outlined before ED was released. I didn't sign up so I could change what FD had promised.

I'm not asking for anything.

Because you are content with the situation. I am not. And of course you would oppose.
Again, it is like fighting slavery in Confederate South.

 

[tolm]

As others have said, there’s a difference between PvP (players choosing to play against each other) and a PvE environment which through no choice of your own can suddenly become PvP. Now, that said, from a mechanics perspective you could just as easily be interdicted by an NPC as by another player ... so ... the issues are:

- a player could have a significantly more powerful ship than you due to engineering, to the point that the standard “submit and run” approach may not work
- a player may attack you for no reason whatsoever whereas an NPC would always be after a Bounty or scan for cargo first

If the PvP players really want to encourage more targets, er ... I mean PvE players ... to join them in Open then I would suggest some safeguards in Open mode over and above the current C&P adjustments:

If your ship is destroyed without your having a Bounty (ie. you were not a legitimate bounty hunting target) and when not carrying cargo (ie. you were not a legitimate piracy target or had already ejected cargo for the pirate to collect) then the rebuy is WAIVED completely for you and furthermore is ADDED to the bounty due for the murderer.

This would mean flying with a Bounty was still a risk (quite right too!) but law abiding pilots who were “ganked” - or killed even after ejecting cargo for the attacker - would not have to pay a rebuy, with that rebuy instead being paid by the attacker.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

As others have said, there’s a difference between PvP (players choosing to play against each other) and a PvE environment which through no choice of your own can suddenly become PvP. Now, that said, from a mechanics perspective you could just as easily be interdicted by an NPC as by another player ... so ... the issues are:

- a player could have a significantly more powerful ship than you due to engineering, to the point that the standard “submit and run” approach may not work
- a player may attack you for no reason whatsoever whereas an NPC would always be after a Bounty or scan for cargo first

If the PvP players really want to encourage more targets, er ... I mean PvE players ... to join them in Open then I would suggest some safeguards in Open mode over and above the current C&P adjustments:

If your ship is destroyed without your having a Bounty (ie. you were not a legitimate bounty hunting target) and when not carrying cargo (ie. you were not a legitimate piracy target or had already ejected cargo for the pirate to collect) then the rebuy is WAIVED completely for you and furthermore is ADDED to the bounty due for the murderer.

This would mean flying with a Bounty was still a risk (quite right too!) but law abiding pilots who were “ganked” - or killed even after ejecting cargo for the attacker - would not have to pay a rebuy, with that rebuy instead being paid by the attacker.

No-no. Risk of being attacked at any time IS the PvP MMO expirience. PvE is that nothing can harm you unless you had concented for that.

I have standing proposition for ship impounds as a punishment for PvP crimes. It is inside focused feedback on CnP archives.
I can shoot rebuys of uningeneered ships from a multicannon for all I care. Possibility of losing my ship for 12 hours is the only thing which would make me reconsider griefing anyone. Not that I had ever done that.

But ATM, Open mode consist only of newbies, griefiers which murder them, and people which are PvPing each other and ganking griefers. It needs revitalising.

When you understand that you are playing poker with wages against nothing while staying in the Open mode, you cannot go back.

 

[Chaparral]

Opt in PVP is fun. I enjoyed in GW GW2 ESO SWOTOR, etc. Also doing it on Conan Exiles now. A key factor of course is no game penalty for dying. This idea has been floated in ED forums before. For a game consistent rationale, you sign up for a faction temporarily, and they pay all or some of your rebuy cost while fighting for them.

BUT this is FDEV. If it doesn't include an easter egg static asset that is irrelevant to continuing game play (other than a 20 loop rinse repeat grind), these guys will NEVER include it in the game. This game is on maintenance. Period.

 

[GJ51]

Because you are content with the situation. I am not. And of course you would oppose.
Again, it is like fighting slavery in Confederate South.

No

It's like talking to someone who understood what he was buying.

So everyone who accepted the terms FD put forth should agree with you?

Good luck

Many a brick wall is stained with the blood from the foreheads of those who thought they could knock it down...

 

[TheLT]

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.

As fast as you join the open mode you accept such risk simple as that, the game can't please everyone and that's why we have the groups.

 

[Nero Tacitus]

Circumlocutions do not change the fact that it is blackmail......We should penalize people that don't play in Open to encourage more options for PvP.

Firstly, the fact that you even perceive my statements as ad hominem pretty much proves my point about being threatened. Secondly, you're upset that I'm making assumptions about your playing habits, yet you assume I want targets to prey upon. And third, "Open get more reward for their time" demonstrates that your motives are, as I suggested, based on a perception of unfairness, that because the system doesn't suit you, it shouldn't exist. If you have a better way of incentivising Open, I'm all ears, but so far all you've done is shot down the ideas of others based on straw man arguments to justify your own personal agenda. I'm more than interested in a solution that makes everyone happy, but so far your only objective is based purely on quid pro quo.

As for the ongoing discussion, people are turning this into a PvP debate when Open =/= PvP. People seem to be under the belief that Open is some sort of highly populated galactic CZ where leaving the station is asking for trouble. Ganking and other griefing activities are rare, they're not the common outcome of seeing another CMDR. Open is about risk, yes, but it's about the possibility, not the certainty. If Open were the default mode (due to incentives), there would be more bounty hunters, more altruistic PvPers, more trader support, all the things the game should have had but lost when Solo/PG became the default mode for anything other than PvP enthusiasts.

Push comes to shove, people are getting pretty worked up over a change that isn't going to be forced on them (unlike the C&P patch, btw). For Solo/PG enthusiasts, nothing changes. You keep making what you are now. Think of it this way, if FDev made a change to cargo missions where the mission giver said "We have some rare cargo to throw in with the order, it would mean you're more likely to be interdicted, but we'll give you an extra 10% for the trouble" would people get this bent of shape over it because people can make more money for taking more risk? No.

 

[tolm]

No-no. Risk of being attacked at any time IS the PvP MMO expirience. PvE is that nothing can harm you unless you had concented for that.

I still maintain that Open is not simply a PvP mode. It would be nice if it were a (more) viable option for the default play mode. There is - and should be - an increased risk in being interdicted by a player (who will likely be a trickier opponent than an NPC) but I don’t believe simply playing in Open should be a carte-blanche acceptance of that risk. If I’m flying from point-A to point-B, with no bounty and no cargo, then there is no legitimate reason for anyone (player or NPC) to attack me. In that scenario, I think rebuy should instead be paid by the attacker (via an increase in bounty pay-off amount) but, if that amount could simply be trivial to the attacker maybe a “ship ban” or similar as well although I was really just looking to prevent a nasty outcome for the “deceased” player.

Flying in Open with a Bounty should be an open invitation for anyone (player or NPC) to try to “take you down” and flying with cargo does indeed carry more risk but, again, should make you a legitimate target for pirates (again, NPC or players) but being able to “surrender” (i.e. ejecting cargo) in return for not having to pay the rebuy if the “pirate” turns out to just be a murderer seems like a fair protection.

Should Open cargo missions pay more for this reason? I dunno - maybe. I like the idea of playing in Open simply to see the occasional “real” CMDR and that immersion - feeling far more part of an actual galaxy - could be enough reward on it’s own, if the risks of out-of-hand extermination were mitigated. After all, that’s why existing players play in Open, right? It’s not just because they want to shoot less well equipped players ... I mean, if that’s all you want to do there are plenty of NPCs in Solo Play ...

One other idea (an addition to the above) would be to introduce a differential in rewards for Community Goals, with greater rewards coming from completing one in Open. I was moderately surprised a “community” goal could even be done in Solo but this would create special events that encourage Open play without “nerfing” (I know, but that’s how some would view it) Solo Play missions in comparison to Open ones.

 

[PocketPsycho]

No, WoW analogy is a very good one here. Your credit balance is your experience bar pretty much.

Deaths in WoW never caused my XP bar to go backwards, I can't say the same for ED.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Deaths in WoW never caused my XP bar to go backwards, I can't say the same for ED.

Experience loss on death was a bit more hardcore mechanic and was quite widespread back in the day.
This makes situation a bit worse, innit?

 

[ethelred]

The only thing IMHO that could be satisfactory (note, not ideal) for all sides is to make Powerplay - Open only.

BGS manipulation stays equal in all modes, but Powerplay is a level above that and has it's own rewards and risks limited to Open only.

For Solo and PG players, Powerplay has no effect on them, as it doesn't affect the BGS - OK they would potentially miss out on PP specific modules etc, but this would perhaps be the carrot to tempt them with?

 

[Marra Morgan]

The only thing IMHO that could be satisfactory (note, not ideal) for all sides is to make Powerplay - Open only.

BGS manipulation stays equal in all modes, but Powerplay is a level above that and has it's own rewards and risks limited to Open only.

For Solo and PG players, Powerplay has no effect on them, as it doesn't affect the BGS - OK they would potentially miss out on PP specific modules etc, but this would perhaps be the carrot to tempt them with?

Whitelist this... block that...

Ta-daa!

I'm in SoloOpen mode, getting all the benefits without any of the risk!

Not something I would do, nor would I approve of - but we've seen time and time again that if there's a zero-risk route, a subsection of the playerbase will take it.

 

[ethelred]

Whitelist this... block that...

Ta-daa!

I'm in SoloOpen mode, getting all the benefits without any of the risk!

Not something I would do, nor would I approve of - but we've seen time and time again that if there's a zero-risk route, a subsection of the playerbase will take it.

Oh yeah, I was on the train and just brainfarting. Needs work obviously, but that's the only thing that has been mooted that has a possibility of happening, IMHO.