Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

Do you want a Open PvE

  • Yes, I want a Open PvE

    Votes: 54 51.4%
  • No, I don't want a Open PvE

    Votes: 49 46.7%
  • I want only Open PvE and PvP only in groups

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Total voters
    105
  • Poll closed .
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
So Solo is hard mode then, as groups and open have wings for defense.
Nice to know, I'll start playing hard mode now then.
It depends on the odds of getting attacked by a human player, or a wing of them as it were. There's also the risk of becoming a little too big for your breeches and biting off more than you can chew in a SSS.

The real hard mode would be to play open without a wing.
 
It depends on the odds of getting attacked by a human player, or a wing of them as it were. There's also the risk of becoming a little too big for your breeches and biting off more than you can chew in a SSS.

The real hard mode would be to play open without a wing.

Hold on a minute;

Open is a wasteland - that is why open advocates want locked modes or forced open mode, to "improve" open.
So if open is a wasteland, you have as much chance of meeting another player in open, as I have meeting a wing of 4 Elite Anacondas in Solo.

Either way, I'm dead.
At least in open, I can get support - in Solo, I cannot.
 
indeed....... but then

1) I would suggest that piracy should be forced to the outskirts of space and not under the noses of the police in the capital systems. Maybe it should be impractical in high sec space, thus giving players the choice to play in open without too much hassle of PvP - albeit with reduced profits and have the more profitable trade routes riskier (as systems with no law would have to pay more to entice traders to visit)

but the main thing for me which is far more important this is this.......

2) its the punishments for killing clean traders as well as the lasting repercussions which need to be worked on. IF a player absolutely wants to fly to leesti and ram and shoot every sidewinder he can see, the game should not mechanically stop him......... BUT it is how the game reacts which is currently way off base. simply getting in a free sidewinder and destructing, then moving a couple of systems away should not be a solution

If Fred and Rose West had just thought, time to move on, scrapped their car and bought a new one, and moved house to 25 miles away in Oxford I do not think the police would have forgotten about them with the notion of "They wont dare come back here again.... for 7 days at least at any point, so lets call off the man hunt! :p
This would also require a massive rebalance to trade profits between the different security levels of systems. Pretty much a complete overhaul of the BGS and I honestly don't see it happening. As much as I'd like it to.

It would also need a reduction in the number of high security systems. It seems like 90% of high population systems are high sec. Maybe even make security of the system match the distance from the capital for faction systems and security level to match government type for independent systems.

If all that gets done, I'm all be happy with it. However that will still only work for piracy. I would still see throw-away gank ships working just as they did in Eve.
 
Last edited:
Hold on a minute;

Open is a wasteland - that is why open advocates want locked modes or forced open mode, to "improve" open.
So if open is a wasteland, you have as much chance of meeting another player in open, as I have meeting a wing of 4 Elite Anacondas in Solo.

Either way, I'm dead.
At least in open, I can get support - in Solo, I cannot.
It depends where you go, I see plenty of players, at least bounty hunters, trying to kill me. The traders have come and gone but most combat professions are still here.
 
Last edited:
You either did not read what I wrote, or you've decided to just be insulting for the sake of it.
Care to elaborate?

How much of a challenge current pirate npc/system authority encounter we have when we can just submit to interdiction and SC away? I can just trade away for hours with weaponless ships and never worried about getting blown up by NPC pirates, which accounts for at least 90+% of interdiction i get. The NPC should imposes enough threats for me to consider flying unarmed a suicide, or act of stupidity like undocking without enough credits for insurance, considering this game is called Elite Dangerous after all. Now, if you do not process lightening reflex to outmaneuver (or enough fire power to fight) the pirates, then the most logical choice for you in this encounter with the pirates should be jettison some of your cargoes in exchange of your freedom, else you will have a very chance to get blown up by the pirates. This does not happen with the current state of the game, npc pirates are a joke. I'm not suggesting you get 100% chance of getting blown up every time you encounter npc pirates. If you can't fight them, then they should make a dent to you profits. At the very least NPC should not turn around and blow you up after you give them cargoes, unlike the human CMDR, so all npc pirates should be a honorable pirates ;). I did not call PvE easy mode as an insult, i called it easy because at its current state, npc encounter do not impose much of a risk as you can just SC away and they are gone. NPC needed to be more persistence (you sc out and they follow to interdict you again) and be more of a challenge.

Most of Open is completely devoid of players and is just as "easy" as Solo - easier, in fact, because players can Wing up for protection in numbers in Open.

I would expect that NPC difficulty its effect on players is something that Frontier keep an eye on. Given that player skill is just one more variable to contend with, Frontier need to ensure that NPCs, on average, are not too difficult for the "average" player. Of course some players will beat some NPCs, some players will beat all NPCs and some players may never beat any NPCs - it's up to Frontier to ensure that most players enjoy the encounters. From what SJA said, before she moved to a different part of the project, NPC difficulty can be ramped up quite dramatically - as and when Frontier deem it to be necessary.

NPC difficulties need to be scaled up properly with the number of the people in the wing. I'm not calling for solo/group mode players to jump into Open. I'm asking for a more challenging environment where there is consequence for your action or inaction (be it committing crime or decision to neglecting to include weapon / poorly outfit your ships).

Fine make it 30 secs, on the other hand 4 is all you get. Now you kill 2 authority ships, another 2 immediately spawn.

30 secs for Hi security systems, the response time should dramatically increases as the security rate decreases. It should be a bad idea for pirates to do their business in hi sec system, but not cripple them in all systems.
 
This would also require a massive rebalance to trade profits between the different security levels of systems. Pretty much a complete overhaul of the BGS and I honestly don't see it happening. As much as I'd like it to.

It would also need a reduction in the number of high security systems. It seems like 90% of high population systems are high sec. Maybe even make security of the system match the distance from the capital for faction systems and security level to match government type for independent systems.

If all that gets done, I'm all be happy with it. However that will still only work for piracy. I would still see throw-away gank ships working just as they did in Eve.

If i were you, i would ask for trader npc to carry more valuable goods as well. At least you can make some decent credit pirating npc while waiting for trader CMDR to show up ;)
 
Where is this route with tons of traders? Why do I want to know? No reason in particular :D

It's a strange sounding name - I'll give you the letters in the wrong order - I'm sure you can work it out!

THECALE

Though I'm currently at Lave in a Python - just checked - went off there last week for something - haven't played for nearly a week (brief hols).
 
This argument keeps coming back to whether players should be subject to non-optional PVP in an online game.

I play Open when I am playing on my own because to me, the reward of being in Open is the ability to meet CMDRs to wing with. I am a miner, so sometimes I get cool bodyguards....and sometimes I get pointy ends of Clippers aimed at me.

However, recently, I had two of my friends join the game. I was trying to teach them basic skills in the starter area, and was constantly running from hostile commanders in far more powerful ships. I received quite a bit of "lol stupid die" and other griefing around the starting zones, by players in powerful ships.

We should have the right to choose whether to play the game with players like this, which is why we created a private group with the intention of going back to Open when everyone is comfortable to.

Increased risk without reward is most definitely the case in Open. However, I don't know of a way that traders and other "victims" would reasonably choose to be exposed to the chance of random, unavoidable, spiteful death, unless the rewards were truly unbalanced in the favor of Open.

I find that the means to achieve this end are probably worse than the current system at this point in the game's development.
 
",

Make trading a challenging career, such that not including any weapon in your tradeship outfit almost guarantee to get blown up. The space is supposed to be dangerous, but at its current stage, not even close.
That would make the Hauler just a completely pointless ship then wouldn't it? No thanks.
 
This argument keeps coming back to whether players should be subject to non-optional PVP in an online game.

I play Open when I am playing on my own because to me, the reward of being in Open is the ability to meet CMDRs to wing with. I am a miner, so sometimes I get cool bodyguards....and sometimes I get pointy ends of Clippers aimed at me.

However, recently, I had two of my friends join the game. I was trying to teach them basic skills in the starter area, and was constantly running from hostile commanders in far more powerful ships. I received quite a bit of "lol stupid die" and other griefing around the starting zones, by players in powerful ships.

We should have the right to choose whether to play the game with players like this, which is why we created a private group with the intention of going back to Open when everyone is comfortable to.

Increased risk without reward is most definitely the case in Open. However, I don't know of a way that traders and other "victims" would reasonably choose to be exposed to the chance of random, unavoidable, spiteful death, unless the rewards were truly unbalanced in the favor of Open.

I find that the means to achieve this end are probably worse than the current system at this point in the game's development.

Join and use Mobius - all the fun of open, without the grief.
Also, there is no requirement to use the Mobius group, so even if you don't use it - having joined it, it is there for days when you do not want a negative experience caused by a player.

You never know, FD may add a true PvE mode to work alongside the PvP mode.
 
The only thing needed is for the rules of engagement to be enforced equally for players as they are for NPC's.

The other day, as I dropped out of supercruise at a station in an undisclosed location, I immediately got an "incoming missile" warning flashing across my hud. The missile was coming head-on and I was pleased to see my point defense system work exactly as the advertising brochure had claimed (cool explosion). Both the NPC pirate and I were still quite a ways outside of the no-fire zone. Almost before I had time to turn and respond I was joined by 4 or 5 friendly system patrol craft and the station as well. Needless to say the NPC pirate was quickly reduced to space dust. That's what should happen to players under the same circumstances...problem solved.

Oh...a few more details...it was in open...station was friendly (green)...distance was about 8.5 km with a 4 km no-fire zone...report crimes against me was on.
 
Last edited:
That would make the Hauler just a completely pointless ship then wouldn't it? No thanks.

And lets ignore the rest of other points i made that if you cant fight the npc pirates, then give them some cargo.

A better implementation would be that the NPC skills level/ships scales with player's combat rank&ship.
 
Last edited:
And lets ignore the rest of other points i made that if you cant fight the npc pirates, then give them some cargo.

A better implementation would be that the NPC skills level/ships scales with player's combat rank&ship.

That is open to abuse though - all a trader has to do is not shoot anything and keep the starting combat rank.
They earn bigger / better trade ships but the NPC attackers remain weak and pointless.
 
They may not be a threat - to YOU.

But not all of us have time to spend hours becoming a OMGWTFL33TR0XX0R pilot.
Plus, some of us are older and our reaction times are slowing down every year.
Your high octane, reflex based action is coming in the form of CQC. The main game is for everyone to enjoy, not just you.
They really need to buff the NPC difficulty, but only in specific system types.

I think medium-to-high security systems should have very powerful police, and low security systems (especially Anarchy) should have very powerful pirates. Police should respond faster and in a more deadly manner to murder (of both players and NPCs). Likewise, pirates should be very dangerous in low-security (and Anarchy) systems - traders should have to think twice before trading there (think Anarchy systems in Oolite - those are actually dangerous!). People want more variety? We have these variables in place - let's make them actually have a meaningful effect on gameplay (they do not as of yet).

Low security/Anarchy systems too hard for you? Reflexes too slow? Don't go to the dangerous systems. Just don't let the PVE game continue to be bland, stale, and uniformly easy for the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
That is open to abuse though - all a trader has to do is not shoot anything and keep the starting combat rank.
They earn bigger / better trade ships but the NPC attackers remain weak and pointless.

I'm open to suggestion :)

The way i see it though, at least the NPC ship will scale with player's ship, so whenever the player decide to pick a fight with pirate npc, he will be matched with lower skill npc in the same ship range/tier.

EDIT:

They really need to buff the NPC difficulty, but only in specific system types.

I think medium-to-high security systems should have very powerful police, and low security systems (especially Anarchy) should have very powerful pirates. Police should respond faster and in a more deadly manner to murder (of both players and NPCs). Likewise, pirates should be very dangerous in low-security (and Anarchy) systems - traders should have to think twice before trading there (think Anarchy systems in Oolite - those are actually dangerous!). People want more variety? We have these variables in place - let's make them actually have a meaningful effect on gameplay (they do not as of yet).

Low security/Anarchy systems too hard for you? Reflexes too slow? Don't go to the dangerous systems. Just don't let the PVE game continue to be bland, stale, and uniformly easy for the rest of us.

I agree, that's probably a better implementation of the scales in difficulties.

Also, i would like to point out that though i play in open (mostly trading). Most of my encounters are NPCs, i.e, PvE. I'm not trying to be annal to PvE players that play in Solo or Group mode. I just want the PvE aspect of the game to be improved and more challenging. PvP is just a bonus content for us Open players (well at lease just me). I would like PvE players to join the Open mode so it will more lively, but with the P2P structure, PvE will still constitute a majority of the content for me anyway.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom