Modes Open mode balancing proposal

[Ziggy Stardust]

Never mind

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Reduced cargo capacity and jump range are the results of building a 'safe for open' trade ship. The ship will not get more efficient, by not encountering another player. The price is already payed.

The theoretical and practical maximum amount of damage you can receive before you have time to wake out, is significantly higher in Open. This is of course a result of imbalance between players and NPCs, and not directly related to the modes. Indirectly it does however make progress slower i open.

I agree with you that an open bonus is not the way to go. It's a bitt like giving access to far to strong shields and then 'fixing' the problem with anti shield special effects.

Making the modes equal in efficiency would be a better approach. Then the modes would be to chose your preferred type of social interaction and not a speed dial for progress.
I think that was the design idea?

Problem with that would be that you would still need higher investments. With zero reasons to do such.
And you will still have lower returns.

 

[Jockey79]

Ah, yes. Block functionality. Or router magic. Another way of making your experience PvE one instead of just going Solo.

What are you on about?
I've not done a thing to my router and my block list has always been empty.

I've been saying for a month you guys can come find me and try to kill me, it real easy - just hang around Founders and you'll see me coming and going.
But you lot are so weak, I may have to take my shields off my unarmed ship to make it a fair fight for you.
You may turn up than and prove how great at PvP you are Vs an unarmed passenger ship then.

lol, who am I kidding, you've all been hiding from me the past month.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

What are you on about?
I've not done a thing to my router and my block list has always been empty.

I've been saying for a month you guys can come find me and try to kill me, it real easy - just hang around Founders and you'll see me coming and going.
But you lot are so weak, I may have to take my shields off my unarmed ship to make it a fair fight for you.
You may turn up than and prove how great at PvP you are Vs an unarmed passenger ship then.

lol, who am I kidding, you've all been hiding from me the past month.

Like.. what...

1) First time I see this info.
2) Are you claiming that your ship is D rated, and is fully stocked with passenger cabins, like it is sufficient in Solo?

 

[Robert Maynard]

So risk premiums are withdrawed when said construction worker never falls off?
Doing your stuff in Open is exactly high-altitude work. And I am talking about risk premiums exactly.
Other modes unavaliable will remove it as a board-hopping introduction for Solo players.

Withdrawn if the construction worker is not actually working at height, I'd expect.

Playing in Open is only comparable with high-altitude work if the player actually meets a player that poses a credible threat.

All the modes are available to all.

 

[Han_Zen]

Problem with that would be that you would still need higher investments. With zero reasons to do such.
And you will still have lower returns.

If builds and game play were properly balanced, the investment would be the same.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Withdrawn if the construction worker is not actually working at height, I'd expect.

Playing in Open is only comparable with high-altitude work if the player actually meets a player that poses a credible threat.

All the modes are available to all.

Hazardous work characterised by additional risks, instead of just drilling your leg by accident. Risk means probability of, and not unavoidable harm.
And open is the same, as it bears additional risks. And the key here is to avoid them, not to recieve damage.
Somehow risk premiums are exactly blanket rewards. For higher risks of hazardous stuff, I had outlined special rewards.

You stepped into dangreous path with actually trying to reason. You should just answered with blatant "this is a game, so there should be risk premiums", like our friend Jockey would do.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

If builds and game play were properly balanced, the investment would be the same.

Balancing AI to human levels would be harder than just introducing risk premiums.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

So you agree that it's not Open that is dangerous, but player interaction?

Risk of interaction with certain type of players is what differs Open with other game modes. It makes Open dangerous.
And such risk should not be removed, as it makes the game livelier for some. It should just be compensated.

You know what would be easier still? Inaction.

Inarguably. But somehow that would not satisfy me. And the game will simply continue to bleed out with players.

 

[Riverside]

But somehow that would not satisfy me.

This is the root of the problem. ED is several games all played in the same (awesome) environment. Consider them as separate games & you only need to find the players playing the same game as you amongst the crowd. This is what other players do. Play their own way & let others (such as yourself) play your way with like-minded players. The conflict is only from trying to force your playstyle on others.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

This is the root of the problem. ED is several games all played in the same (awesome) environment. Consider them as separate games & you only need to find the players playing the same game as you amongst the crowd. This is what other players do. Play their own way & let others (such as yourself) play your way with like-minded players. The conflict is only from trying to force your playstyle on others.

No risk premiums implemented exactly do force a mode-switching playstyle. Or how come you are saying that implementation of those would force someone to play somewhere?
Of course it would make people consider this. But there is little to consider for PvP players at the moment.

 

[Warm Considering]

This ongoing argument illustrates the old philosophical division in gaming between economists and epicureans.

The economist refuses to act without incentive, and the epicurean only acts when the act itself is pleasurable.

That is why this will never end.

 

[Riverside]

But there is little to consider for PvP players at the moment.

There have been several suggestions (including this one) mooted, but no consensus even amongst players that might use these proposed features let alone overcoming any objections from the rest of the community.

You are effectively making demands without realising how weak your position is. The game allows you to do what you want, and it allows anyone else to do what they want. You want other players to do what you want.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

This ongoing argument illustrates the old philosophical division in gaming between economists and epicureans.

The economist refuses to act without incentive, and the epicurean only acts when the act itself is pleasurable.

There is no black and white. And getting dat Conda is pleasure as well.
But you are right on the bigger scale.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

There have been several suggestions (including this one) mooted, but no consensus even amongst players that might use these proposed features let alone overcoming any objections from the rest of the community.

You are effectively making demands without realising how weak your position is. The game allows you to do what you want, and it allows anyone else to do what they want. You want other players to do what you want.

At the moment, this game punishes me for doing what I want. And for weird reasons.
I want this to be fixed, even if some players will consider doing what I want. Did I ever said about forbidding?

 

[Robert Maynard]

At the moment, this game punishes me for doing what I want. And for weird reasons.
I want this to be fixed, even if some players will consider doing what I want. Did I ever said about forbidding?

Choices have consequences - that's what the game is all about.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Choices have consequences - that's what the game is all about.

..all about? Some people have consequences, other have none.

 

[Riverside]

..all about? Some people have consequences, other have none.

Please give some specific examples so we can test this assertion.

 

[Robert Maynard]

..all about? Some people have consequences, other have none.

All players face consequences for their choices - hazards, defined and implemented by Frontier, exist in all game modes.

 

[Jockey79]

...., other have none.

Please explain.