Recommendation to help new players and old ones too

[Rubbernuke]

Well, not really. The FSD makes it practical to move ships between systems easily. Unpopulated systems likely wouldn't have pirates because there'd be no reason to expect pirates there; lawless inhabited systems would be taken over by the nearest regional power in short order if the NPCs could just do that rather than relying on random player noise via the BGS (and even then, random player BGS noise gets rid of Anarchies pretty efficiently)

The point is that ED is a game about flying armed spaceships. For that to work there has to be something to use the weapons on. So it can't depict a society where the state has pretty much any strength whatsoever - no matter how nonsensical that is, either narratively or in terms of anything else depicted in-game - because there's not a game if it does. Ability to respond to pirates is not the only area where the ED governments have way less power than they should (see also: cargo inspections, dock traffic control, etc.)

Spaceship-flying games certainly don't need to have weapons. KSP doesn't and is better off for it. But in Elite (whether Dangerous, or the previous three) it's core to the entire concept, so the setting needs to be in service of making carrying and using weapons a sensible thing to do.

I was having a lively debate on this sort of thing in another thread, but what I'd have loved ED to have is better synergy between ship, BGS, faction and power / s power so that location actually makes a difference.

So player choices of where they live / what they do is driven by the topography of the BGS- for example this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...sible-for-player-assets-such-as-ships.597257/ , high end ships can only be properly serviced at high tech stations (while old or generic ships can be done anywhere) or that superpower alignment actually matters (so that locked ships are beholden to having those factions for repairs).

If you had this and worked out as best you could, it might create more of a balanced field- pirates in the 'real world' use low end and disposable ships because thats what they can risk. The problem we have is that there are no drawbacks to owning a combat ship and using it...er...improperly ( ).

The other well trodden problem is that power creep, credit inflation and other issues have made policing impossible via PvE means when in Open (that is, the police are a bit useless).

 

[Rebel Yell]

Most cmdrs can shake off a gnat that is a pirate npc. But a cmdr hobo/pirate is a different story. And forgive me for comparing the two, there isn't a comparison. They both simply break the law. Just to more or lesser degrees.

NPC pirates are a nightmare for a newbie (= first couple of weeks in the game) but as far as a player learns how to evade/avoid they are a very light threat to low-(or none) engineered ships [most kabooms happen when player is AFK, watching a movie, browsing web minimizing the game window, etc].

Human pirates (the ones looking for cargo) offers one of the highest gameplay experience/challenge in Elite Dangerous environment, that works for both sides involved.

It is not comparable, because there' no AI in the game which can replace human interaction.

For all the other cases, with PP2 is honestly almost impossible to see a "no faction" player around -> enemy power -> legit engagement (whatever the outome is) and legit gameplay // the workaround is "don't fly paper ships" (take it as an advice, if you want to haul 780t in a Cutter and then being kaboomed it's a youproblem).

If one doesn't feel ready or doesn't want to enjoy all this unique type of experience, just go solo/PG and dismiss instantly the "vs-human" factor which honestly everytime the argument is touched on this sub it seems like we are speaking about kryptonite to Superman.

 

[aRJay]

…
That having cmdrs in various modes detracts from the whole idea of an MMo.
…

But apart from being online, in many ways massive and having some multiplayer aspects is Elite really an MMo as the term is understood by the modern gamer?

 

[Dragsham]

You fall over with the phrase 'some multiplayer aspects'. I don't wanna get into another grammar blurb with anyone on here, lord knows I've learned my lesson well.
World of warcraft sums it up for me. A universal chat ( regional/city based)
Which links those in a given area to one another. Asking questions, or just banter. And yes toxicity too. Unfortunately we cannot filter out human nature misbehaving, or a lack of manners and decorum.
Also just seeing folks. In solo/pg you'll either see knowone or just squadron mates.
That's ok some are happy with that.
But l feel this game lacks ingame comms that could really bring the game onto another level.
Yeah you can in open @ a CG if you choose to partake in open. The 3 modes offer so many permutations it's difficult to list them all.
The underlying lack of comms in the galaxy as a whole is for me what stops elite being a true MMo.
That and of course the 3 modes which obviously split the player base.
Yes we all don't want universal chat, some are happy alone. And that's cool perhaps a switch to kill comms.
But the big picture lacks a galaxy wide community. We all build comms stations in our colonys. Why not start using them.

 

[Brrokk]

The beginner systems are locked out because some sociopaths are intent on making life hell for the rest of us. While I personally think those people are the ones who deserve to rot in solitary confinement for eternity, this game has all makes.

Rather than having to lock out certain areas from psychopaths so that new players have a chance, I propose a solution that actually encourages open play and doesn't drive off potential players.

In order to PVP kill a ship, it should require fulfilling one of these requirements (not an exhaustive list):

• Wanted with bounty
• Rival Power Play faction
• Opposing CZ faction
• Has fired upon the attacking vessel

In the case that none of these or any other reasonable criteria are met, the attacking ship cannot reduce the power plant, life support, or hull strength below 5%. This would allow for safe PVP piracy on other players as you can disable engines and extract cargo, but a new player need not worry about losing their ship "for the lulz" because some degenerate needs to attack weaker people to show their abilities. This also allows for world PVP in a fashion that does not force those who do not want to be needlessly killed into solo or private servers.

This would also serve as a discouragement from simply trying to anger new players as it takes away the explosion from psychos against players who do not want to participate, again, without forcing them into solo or private instances. If another player accepts the engagement by firing back, then the "game is on".

While I would personally prefer not to include the power play faction in this, I can justify its inclusion because joining a power play faction is not required for progression. This still allows for powerplay to be a dangerous choice to make.

For those who are initially against this, consider this: If this is the expectation there will be fewer players who default to solo/private, allowing for more potential interactions. You will be able to fire on them, but they will be able to choose if they want to retaliate. If they do, you get a full combat interaction with more of a selection of available players who know they made the choice to allow the combat. FDev gets more active players because new players aren't ran off by sociopaths, and Elite has a chance to grow with a happier player base.

That's simply not what Open means in ED. The Open environment is as much a promise to players as is Solo or PG. FDev have stood firm, in the face of much debate, on the notion that Open is just that.

I find myself liking both the first two posts. They're both right. I refuse to choose between them.

 

[CMDR Lefty Jackson]

Pirate history? LOL, ask the British how that worked! They weren't pirates, they were "independent contractors" for the crown.

But yes, it didn't last all that long, and eventually they were hunted out even in the Caribbean where they had retreated to for safety.

The point is, humans don't like pirates/criminals and eventually will deal with them harshly.

Pirates in ED is just not realistic, at all.

I guarantee that if there were no Solo/PG mode in ED, players wouldn't tolerate pirates at all. They would either demand it stop, or they would quit playing.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I find myself liking both the first two posts. They're both right. I refuse to choose between them.

Yeah, thread title should be sociopaths vs. carebears.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Pirate history? LOL, ask the British how that worked! They weren't pirates, they were "independent contractors" for the crown.

But yes, it didn't last all that long, and eventually they were hunted out even in the Caribbean where they had retreated to for safety.

The point is, humans don't like pirates/criminals and eventually will deal with them harshly.

Pirates in ED is just not realistic, at all.

I guarantee that if there were no Solo/PG mode in ED, players wouldn't tolerate pirates at all. They would either demand it stop, or they would quit playing.

I wonder if anyone goes on the GTA forums saying stuff like this?

 

[CMDR Lefty Jackson]

I wonder if anyone goes on the GTA forums saying stuff like this?

Grand "Theft" Auto. I'm sure pirates are heroes in GTA. Never owned the game. Just not a lifestyle I care to be a part of. That's why there are so many different style of games.

I should clarify, in ED, if it were Open only, I do believe things would change among players when it comes to pirates. We already have players acting as escorts from what I've read. I think that would become more of a thing, as well as pirate hunting. You start cutting into a player's time and credits, eventually, they will get tired of it and make changes. It might actually be interesting to see how it would go.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Grand "Theft" Auto. I'm sure pirates are heroes in GTA. Never owned the game. Just not a lifestyle I care to be a part of. That's why there are so many different style of games.

I should clarify, in ED, if it were Open only, I do believe things would change among players when it comes to pirates. We already have players acting as escorts from what I've read. I think that would become more of a thing, as well as pirate hunting. You start cutting into a player's time and credits, eventually, they will get tired of it and make changes. It might actually be interesting to see how it would go.

It hasn't happened yet. Mainly because there's no way to blow up a ship that can last 20 minutes in a PvP fight before it blows up a ship that can't survive the 15 seconds it takes to high wake out the system.

 

[Elyssaen]

The point is that ED is a game about flying armed spaceships. For that to work there has to be something to use the weapons on. So it can't depict a society where the state has pretty much any strength whatsoever - no matter how nonsensical that is, either narratively or in terms of anything else depicted in-game - because there's not a game if it does. Ability to respond to pirates is not the only area where the ED governments have way less power than they should (see also: cargo inspections, dock traffic control, etc.)

I'm giving away all my ideas here, but... my ideal solution to this problem goeth thusly.

In some imagined sci-fi game, you have three different types of enemy dividing up the Pirate role.

The first and most prevalent are Berserkers. These are self-replicating machines of a few different 'strains', launched by ancient alien civilisations incalculably long ago and spreading across the galaxy from seed worlds using slow FTL or even sublight drives. Human tech would surpass them, but they're a ubiquitous pest and provide most of the target practice. A government wiping them out just isn't realistic, but the main spacelanes are kept safe from them.

The second are Marauders. These are human, and are anarchic frontier clans ranging from the likes of Firefly Reavers, to Vikings, to regular rogue states. They raid and pillage, and don't like intruders into anything they consider their space (which isn't recognised by your galaxy maps).

The last are Pirates. Most of the time they're invisible: they generally have a clean ID they usually operate under, so you don't recognise them in passing. Either singly or in groups of ships, they go after specific high value targets and hit them in targeted ambushes. Pirates with a bounty on their head wouldn't be hugely prevalent because they mostly lay low or get killed.

 

[heathenlamb]

The inherent problem with this suggestion is that it's predicated on the idea that solo/PG players are somehow afraid of PvP or Ganking ... the truth is a lot of us Solo players simply don't want to interact with other humans (that we don't know) in the black. If I play in the Open and get destroyed, I shrug my shoulders and move on with my life ... it's the Open ... I think there are other aspects that are keeping new players at bay ... but that's for a different topic.

 

[IcewindZG]

Essentially, this thread came from my desire to actually encounter other players, but not to have the experience of trolls being trolls. I exclusively play in solo anymore. I don't want to only do that. For me to come out of solo, and provide myself as a potential piracy target, I would need a gameplay assurance that I am protected to a degree.

With my suggestions, it would allow piracy. You can take a cargo hold to 0% and it will loose all the cargo. You can take out the drives. You can disable their weapons. But unless they strike back, you cannot destroy them outright. Of course, the mentioned caveats of Wanted, or players marked Enemy in the Power Play areas. Conditions where you can attack a ship and not yourself gain a bounty. This would styme wanton destruction as the primary interaction and permit less destructive interactions. Of course, if someone was to shoot back... well, there's your acceptance to PVP.

These protections would have the bonus of making the starter systems not NEED to be locked out. They could have even more protection for new pilots. Make it where they can't be destroyed by any pilot who is beyond "Harmless" rank. Make it where a seasoned Commander cannot fully destroy any part of a Harmless rank Commander's ship, or that of a Commander that would still have the starter systems permit. Then I can go to Dromi and help a new player learn the ropes.

This would bring me back into Open, as I am sure many other players would do. I would be curious the number of players in PG or Solo vs. the number in Open.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

With my suggestions, it would allow piracy. You can take a cargo hold to 0% and it will loose all the cargo. You can take out the drives. You can disable their weapons. But unless they strike back, you cannot destroy them outright.

If your ship has no drives, sensors or FSD integrity left, and the power plant, hull and life support are at 5%, and all your cargo has been lost, then not having to pay the rebuy does not really save you very much. Your repair bill is going to be a significant proportion of the rebuy anyway, you're down however much you spent on the cargo (or due a mission-related fine of even larger size), and you still have to get back to the station in a nearly-dead ship without running into any NPCs, planets, etc. who aren't limited in the damage they can cause you.

(A beginner might not even realise that they can reboot/repair to get out of that situation. And a real beginner in their Freewinder has zero rebuy anyway so saving them paying that doesn't really help)

If we consider the bigger ships, a Type-9 has a rebuy of 6 million credits, but can easily carry cargo worth 15-30 million.
On the smaller side, a Type-6 has a rebuy of just 200,000 credits or so in a "pure freighter" style of fit, but can carry 2-4 million credits worth of cargo.

Are there really that many people for whom the problem is "ship destruction" specifically rather than "losing a fight at a cost of millions of credits and time" that the difference really matters? (People with a bunch of exploration data, sure. But they already have ways to avoid PvP loss of that data - in Open - if they think that's a risk)

I would be curious the number of players in PG or Solo vs. the number in Open.

Frontier haven't said for a while, but the last time they did, the majority of players played in Open [1]. Nothing has significantly changed in any direction since they said that to affect proportions, so it's probably still true; anecdotally comparing the number of players I see in systems with the station traffic reports is still consistent with well over half of players being in Open.

As always the best way for Frontier to get more players into Open is to ignore people like you who would play Open if some very specific changes were made, and indeed to ignore the modes issue entirely, and just make changes which attract more players to the game in total. There are likely about twice as many players in Open now as there were a year ago, because Frontier has attracted more players to the game - which based on Frontier's statement means that there are probably more players in Open now (well, maybe not right now, it's a weekday morning - at peak times on a weekend, then) than there were total people in game a year ago [2].

Compared with that sort of effect, adjusting things on the margins to maybe get a few percent of players to select Open more often than they select Solo is irrelevant.


[1] There are also a lot of people who switch modes depending on what they're doing, of course. I mostly play in Open, I'll switch to PG if there's an event in a PG I want to attend, I'll switch to Solo if other players are being annoying (this generally means "pad hogging" rather than "shooting at me", in practice) or if I've got something I want to test out and even a friendly player might get in the way a bit, or if I want to take a high-res screenshot. So "the majority of players are in Open" does not mean "the majority of players in Deciat are in Open" or "the majority of players solely play Open and no other modes"

[2] Of course, other consequences of those changes mean that there's now three times the inhabited system count, about twenty times the Powerplay surface area, etc. so the chances of meeting another player in any particular system have probably gone down.

 

[Nidoboros]

Pirate history? LOL, ask the British how that worked! They weren't pirates, they were "independent contractors" for the crown.

I wonder if anyone goes on the GTA forums saying stuff like this?

Have people stopped calling the police 'land-pirates' while I wasn't paying attention? I'm surprised you don't have system security doing more shakedowns.

Really, the answer about why pirates still exist is more with the lore than the mechanics. If memory serves, prior to 3301 when the game timeliness begins, there were no FSD drives... there was only the hyperdrive. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

So travel from system to system was fast through witchspace, but then you had to use sublight engines to go anywhere inside of that system. Security forces could not respond with speed, each convoy would need its own set of defenders (thus guns on the ships themselves, bit bring combat ships, too).

We are just over 10 years into the paradigm shift of fast response FSDs, after centuries of stagnation. I'm surprised they have responded as quickly as they have.