And your comments remind me of a different joke.Fair enough, everyone’s entitled to their opinion. But your comment reminds me of the joke about the guy driving on the highway. He hears on the radio: "Warning! There's a car going the wrong way on the highway!" And he thinks: "One? There must be a thousand of them!"
Sometimes, it’s worth considering if the problem might not just be with all those "other drivers."
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
They can afford fish & chips in London?Just seen this & it reminded me of this thread
Open vs Solo and Group
Risk and lower rewards (flying decent builds) vs no risk and high rewards (through shieldless min/max strategies).
I will ask RARE to change Safer Seas so they have higher rewards compared to normal mode and see how they react.
This topic is dead. The last chance was with the Sammarco initiative years ago. Just don´t take the game seriously and enjoy flying. It´s not meant to be taken seriously.
Risk and lower rewards (flying decent builds) vs no risk and high rewards (through shieldless min/max strategies).
I will ask RARE to change Safer Seas so they have higher rewards compared to normal mode and see how they react.
This topic is dead. The last chance was with the Sammarco initiative years ago. Just don´t take the game seriously and enjoy flying. It´s not meant to be taken seriously.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Unlike Rare, who added Safer Seas to their game in response to player demand, this game launched with players in all three game modes experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy - so while the emphasis in Sea of Thieves was that it was a PvP game to which a PvE game mode was later added, this game has always been a game where no player needs to engage in PvP to affect the shared galaxy....Open vs Solo and Group
Risk and lower rewards (flying decent builds) vs no risk and high rewards (through shieldless min/max strategies).
I will ask RARE to change Safer Seas so they have higher rewards compared to normal mode and see how they react.
This topic is dead. The last chance was with the Sammarco initiative years ago. Just don´t take the game seriously and enjoy flying. It´s not meant to be taken seriously.
I never disputed that. And its perfectly fine for many in-game activities. For competitive ones? Not so great. And you cannot deny that playing in solo or private group is more rewarding which has nothing to do with the overall concept, just with its execution. That´s all I really wanted to express so I will end it here.
Have a good weekend
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
From the perspective of players for whom "competition should include PvP" certainly - however they didn't buy a game where PvP is a necessary component of any in-game feature, even if they don't agree with the way that the game has been designed and implemented.
Everyone thinks that open is this magical place where everyone meets everyone else ???
And holds onto that dream no matter what .
Open is a series of instances .
We don't know how many of these "private" instances there are, it all depends on a few variables of your connection to who if any can join .
And holds onto that dream no matter what .
Open is a series of instances .
We don't know how many of these "private" instances there are, it all depends on a few variables of your connection to who if any can join .
I will put this in and stop watching as I seem to making the same points . BGS and PP are filling buckets, move this from here to there some have taken one line the "slow the other commander down so he doesn't fill up his bucket as fast " as the grand design for PvP. In my opinion it's if you happen to see an enemy commander you can try and stop or slow him down . That's it I fill my buckets in my open more quickly than you do in your open . That's the competitive nature not slowing down or blowing up , moving stuff from a to b .
I got bumped here in another thread but I think this post is more appropriate for this thread.
I keep getting confused to ask why there is a strict separation of humans and NPCs in the game, it manifests itself in everything from empty squares on the radar ...
Many people have different explanations for this ... good and bad.
Here's my question: If they made such a division into humans and NPCs why in the game combat rating is one? Why can't the combat rating of PvP be counted separately?
And if you have a PvP rating of 0 - then when your ship is destroyed you have insurance 0. As soon as you get to 100 PVP rating, then the insurance for your ship 100% (you can even full value of the ship) it will give veterans PVP additional risk and they will be more interesting to play.
I keep getting confused to ask why there is a strict separation of humans and NPCs in the game, it manifests itself in everything from empty squares on the radar ...
Many people have different explanations for this ... good and bad.
Here's my question: If they made such a division into humans and NPCs why in the game combat rating is one? Why can't the combat rating of PvP be counted separately?
And if you have a PvP rating of 0 - then when your ship is destroyed you have insurance 0. As soon as you get to 100 PVP rating, then the insurance for your ship 100% (you can even full value of the ship) it will give veterans PVP additional risk and they will be more interesting to play.
There are pros & cons to doing it either way, the game designers made a decision that was fairly arbitrary. You can communicate with other players for example.
AFAIK PvP kills count towards your combat rank, or did if they don't any more.
If you have ideas for how insurance could work differently there is a suggestions sub-forum but I don't think Credits are much of a motivating factor either way to someone who wants to shoot at you or that you shoot at. Any additional risk from rebuy costing more credits to an 'experienced PvPer' isn't going to significantly change how they behaves, they are also good at knowing when it's time to bug out.
I can't create topics in the suggestion section.
But we can evaluate it until we try it.
The 0% insurance gankers will start 99%ing player ships to keep the 0% PvP insurance cost.
Well, that's good.
1. It's harder to do than just kill.
2. The victim doesn't have to pay to re-purchase the ship at full value.
3. There will again be a need for a community of Fuell-Rats (or forgot their name) to fly in and fix your ship.
4. By the way, like 99% of the time you can do a reboot and drag yourself to the nearest station ...
5. Probably a lot more pluses from it.
155 Pages on my favourite topic....
Where have you been all my life!
Still the easy solution...:
Split the Galaxy & BGS. The Console's legacy mode proved the concept. The Devs have the capacity, the infrastructure exists.
Give PvE'ers a galaxy, give PvP'ers a galaxy, and never their BGS's shall meet.
Maybe allow some sort of conditional/limited migration between the two (e.g. limit transfer of ranks/credit/ship/module), or not.
Put an end to this debate and the unecessary internal community conflict, by letting everyone play the game they want to play.
Where have you been all my life!
Still the easy solution...:
Split the Galaxy & BGS. The Console's legacy mode proved the concept. The Devs have the capacity, the infrastructure exists.
Give PvE'ers a galaxy, give PvP'ers a galaxy, and never their BGS's shall meet.
Maybe allow some sort of conditional/limited migration between the two (e.g. limit transfer of ranks/credit/ship/module), or not.
Put an end to this debate and the unecessary internal community conflict, by letting everyone play the game they want to play.
A good idea but sadly a split galaxy would not work, what we have at the moment is actually by far and away the best solution, the three modes give everybody what they want.
Sadly its only the PvP community that want change possibly due to a lack of seals.
O7
Wouldnt work, how?
It is a good idea.
The console legacy mode has proven it will work
The 3 three modes, as you firstly ignore then correctly recognise, dont give everyone what they want.
A good idea, that is proven to work and gives everyone what they want.... I'd plus one that everyday of the week.
Even the forums would be a better place.
No more C&P threads. No more ganker/griefer threads. No more seal-clubber threads. No more Open-Only threads...
Everyone wins.
Last edited:
Personally I agree; I'd like it to be like that, and I'd enjoy playing in the PvE galaxy without needing a workaround like Mobius. But what you're overlooking is that not everyone wins.
1. PvEers are already playing the game they want to play. In your proposal they would continue to do so.
2. PvPers wouldn't be playing the game they want to play! Other games have gone this route (and I don't rule out the possibility that Elite might yet do it); what always happens is that the PvE server becomes the "real", populated game, and the PvP server becomes largely deserted. Reading this immense thread carefully, you can often see this fear expressed when a PvE mode or a PvP flag are suggested.
Last edited:
The 'flag' proposal isn't analogous to what I've proposed here.
Flags just remove the [Mode], putting everyone together in [Open]. Both groups of players would still be working in the same BGS.
PvP'ers make the same argument against flags that they make against the status quo because PvE;ers would still be invulnerable to the PvP'er, while undermining their faction/power.
Split Galaxy/BGS fixes this. Everyone choosing to play the PvP Galaxy would be by definition a consensual target. No grief, no salt.
It would mean the PvE'ers can do away with PG member limits, no risk of infiltration and maximise the chances of encountering other PvE'ers out in the void.
Win/Win/Win
Plus One this post and bounce it into the Suggestions box.
As far as I understand he wants to have two Earths, and for explorers to have twice as many planets to explore
)I'm not in favor of PvP (I don't care at all) but if we have one account, one galaxy why do we need any out of game filters?
Because it's a game that relies on players giving FDEV money and they don't want everyone who does PvE only from just walking away from an endless gankfest of epic proportions leaving on the small proportion of PvP players who wouldn't be enough to keep them running. To maximise player count and profit sometimes they have to do stuff that annoys a small group of players, c'est la vie!