And the attacker is rewarded less, as I point out to another response. Its silly to penalise an attacker for using the best tools for the job, when the hauler should be doing the same- if the hauler did, then they'd get even more rewards for 'winning'.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
But only 1 person is being forced to risk everything, while the other sits in a nice comfortable gunboat with no danger of losing their ship/ credits or anything else.
They'd be risking it regardless, since the system being talked about does not 'see' players or NPCs, just encounters.
Or is it because you'd have to actually consider ship builds inconveniencing you? Its only a risk if you make it one- build carefully and fly skillfully and you'll be racking up money while the NPC and player attackers lose.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The attacker would not be being penalised - however they wouldn't get a bonus if they faced no risk from the ships they targeted....
Attackers (if other players) get paid less and have to actually find, chase down and destroy targets. They also have to overcome any defences like other players covering too.
One of the cornerstones of ED is using the right ship and modules for the job- when haulers do that they are going to escape other players and especially NPCs a lot more- meaning they are going to earn far , far more- and being rewarded for making smart choices.
Last edited:
Again a disadvantage to me as a hauler, i have to lose space and jump range for countermeasures and im still outmatched by a purpose built gunboat.
I have one chance, evade and jump, you know as well as i do that with the right ship that can be stopped.
So its all the risk on the trader, the attacker has none at all, he/she either wins or loses time, the defender loses time at best, at worst his/her ship.
O7
Given that most of PP V2 activity is local between fortified / stronghold systems (i.e. one jump) range is not an issue- and I don't see why having to compromise to survive is somehow bad, in a feature about getting through fights- even FD in FU-4 say this "dodge the fights, show you can still trade". The second consideration is that deliveries should not be guaranteed- V1 in solo was literally unopposed.
And again, this bonus is applied to every encounter you have, which means being a hauler in a power should be very lucrative and beyond what attackers get given any attempt on you is rewarded. I also wonder if FD will make rebuys a perk also, making loss even less.
Is the attacker compromising on anything?
Its beside the point, we wont be hauling in Open anyway, not sure why im getting to deep in this debate
O7
Currently, we don't risk it regardless, we fly the builds we want and enjoy our time how we want and get paid the same in any mode - which is what we paid for when we bought the game. The choice of engaging in PvP or not. And if we choose to PvP, we fly the ship we want for that task.
Forcing people into Open mode removes the choice and places all risks squarely on the shoulders of the "victim". As the attacker was already choosing PvP and had no risk (or "inconvenience") at all in their actions.
Now if a failed interdiction leads to the attacking ship being instantly sent to the rebuy screen, plus there were modules (or an FSD or engine type) a hauler could fit to assist them in the interdiction. Then the "inconvenience" is a bit more balanced out and the attacking ship is risking something.
But as it stands, the attacker has zero risk and all rewards. So due to that game imbalance, I'm not engaging in your one-sided PvP
Last edited:
Don't fly a ship which goes boom or cope with the kaboom: problem solved.
Don't fly in Open, problem solved fasterDon't fly a ship which goes boom or cope with the kaboom: problem solved.
O7
If PP2.0 ends up open only, then i'll just ignore it. No drama, no fuss.
Don't fly a ship which goes boom or cope with the kaboom: problem solved.
Put you all on block and continue to enjoy a product/service I paid for - problem solved.
Just to entertain the idea of hauling in open for PP, will this build be able to survive a wing of 4 meta-lances long enough to reach the station (say about 5K ls away)?
C8 Prismo: https://edsy.org/s/vZPfVCH
or
C6 Prismo: https://edsy.org/s/vgMX0H2
C8 Prismo: https://edsy.org/s/vZPfVCH
or
C6 Prismo: https://edsy.org/s/vgMX0H2
Last edited:
Not a chance. Their kill wings are designed and engineered to take you out long before your FSD can spool up again.
And even with a 320m/s top boost, you won't get out of their weapon ranges unless they make a mistake or you have those mines that knock people about. And even then that would only be a rally slim chance (if any) of lasting long enough for the first interdiction. They'll get you a 2nd time before your station drop out point.
Nothings 100%, but as an open trader, looking at that I'd say you've got a chance with that, particularly if you switched out a lot of the class A modules for (to improve survivability) and put dome militqry bulkheads on, assuming you've done a lot of the 'predicting setup' (like ensuring you're pointing at the mailbox from the moment you revert).
It was very rare to find a full 4 man wing like that though... they tended to operate in smaller packs than that (at least in PP back in the day) to maximise coverage, and 1 or 2 interdictor wingmates on your side could keep them busy well before that point.
Does a shark take out its teeth when it attacks? Or does the shoal stop having too many fast moving fish?Is the attacker compromising on anything?
Its beside the point, we wont be hauling in Open anyway, not sure why im getting to deep in this debate
O7
In this system you'd be rewarded regardless of mode remember. Its the encounters and not because there is a player attacking.Its beside the point, we wont be hauling in Open anyway, not sure why im getting to deep in this debate
O7
At what point does a system that is mode agnostic force you into Open? Unless I mistyped what we are talking about here, this is a way for all fights to be judged based on the scale of danger.