Well their claims need evidence to stand, and proof to be found, and a verdict to be held. It's going to be fun
agreed, the one who accused me of it still hasn't answered with any evidence ^,^
- Status
agreed, the one who accused me of it still hasn't answered with any evidence ^,^
Maybe they could actually put in the description that open is pvp it would sort a lot of it out and answer all the 'I was killed by x pirate' thread that plaster the forum.
People play in open for;
1) braggin rights being able to fly around and do the whole role play thing and its a great experience for them
2) others play in open because the games they play are games like Unreal tournament and other games of that ilk, to this end they are the ones that shoot first at everything but think they arent doing wrong
3) You have the griefers and cheats that try to find a way around the system and have indestructible ships and shields and loads of creds for nothing, these tend to be short lived and shadowbanned.
4) On the whole of it the last group of people are the ones that just want to play the game with other people some of them just wanted Elite with multiplayer, its these people that sometimes get miffed and spam the forums when they hit the rebuy screen without a word.
All in all each mode of the game has its bonuses and downsides but its all in the description.
People play in open for;
1) braggin rights being able to fly around and do the whole role play thing and its a great experience for them
2) others play in open because the games they play are games like Unreal tournament and other games of that ilk, to this end they are the ones that shoot first at everything but think they arent doing wrong
3) You have the griefers and cheats that try to find a way around the system and have indestructible ships and shields and loads of creds for nothing, these tend to be short lived and shadowbanned.
4) On the whole of it the last group of people are the ones that just want to play the game with other people some of them just wanted Elite with multiplayer, its these people that sometimes get miffed and spam the forums when they hit the rebuy screen without a word.
All in all each mode of the game has its bonuses and downsides but its all in the description.
Open wasn't supposed to be a PvP arena, players made it that way. Not surprising that some people leave to play elsewhere.
Well, I got a friendly reminder why not to play open this morning.
It was actually a misclick, but since I was just moving to my base after the Bast CG I decided not to relog.
When I arrived at my homebase and was on the final leg, I was intrigued to see some combat going on around the station. I thought nothing more of it and continued towareds it.
Some guy who was being attacked by the security forces zipped by me and there was contact, thereby incurring a 200 cr fine on me as I was speeding. 2 seconds after that the station opened fire at me and I was on the security screen. Not exactly sure how that happened though.
I guess I relearned my lesson there
- - - Updated - - -
insurance screen, not security screen
It was actually a misclick, but since I was just moving to my base after the Bast CG I decided not to relog.
When I arrived at my homebase and was on the final leg, I was intrigued to see some combat going on around the station. I thought nothing more of it and continued towareds it.
Some guy who was being attacked by the security forces zipped by me and there was contact, thereby incurring a 200 cr fine on me as I was speeding. 2 seconds after that the station opened fire at me and I was on the security screen. Not exactly sure how that happened though.
I guess I relearned my lesson there
- - - Updated - - -
insurance screen, not security screen
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I see your point however imo buffing 1 mode over an other is not the same as fixing piracy. fixing PvE piracy fixes piracy accross all modes where as potentially artificially buffing open over solo essentially is the same as nerfing solo, which is infair to those who cant join open, and to those who simply have no interest in human interaction. For those with no interest in human interaction you may find they will just fiddle with their router, or pull the plug. It is generally hard to force people to play a mode they have no interest in.......... if you make open the defacto mode to play with with boosts and what not people are just as likely to say "this is " and drop the game altogether imo..
Generally it is the PEOPLE playing in open who are the ones responsible to making open an attractive place to play, and imo it is the people playing in it who have to take the responsibility for not acting like jerks... Jordan, from what i have read you are exactly the kind of pirate the game needs. I can see why it is fustrating and sympathise with you but still do not want open made officially the defacto mode and all others the also rans. At the very least, fake buffs need to only be considered AFTER the security forces get some teeth, and AFTER players acting like idiots have tough lasting consequences tied to them...... It may turn out that is all that is needed to get people back in open.... I can only speak for myself, but that would get me back in open.
i do agree it is a tough one.
Last edited:
Jockey....
1) did you respond to the wrong person? I absolutely do NOT keep asking for open to be a massive player hub... the only thing i ask of open is for it to be as detailed in the dev diarys... a mode where, whilst everything CAN happen, the consequenes for doing things considered annoying will be punished and punished hard.
2) AFAIK I never wrote the line you put in my "quote".. i think you maybe snipped badly.....
I played in Group for the 1st time last night. Mobius group. Saw some CMDR's and didn't have to be concerned. Although I must figure out and bind my comms panel. I don't mind interaction with other CMDR's as long as its positive interaction. The yr is 3301 and to be in a galaxy with griefers means to me we are no better than we are today. My vision of the future is more positive and that's the galaxy I wish to be in. Not one that behaves the same as humans do today. Have we not developed from where we are? Is this the vision we have for our future? Its not mine.
The problem as I see it in open, is that murderers have no consequences to their actions. They can just kill at will with no consequences other than a fine or a wanted tag or a bounty. Killing someone has to have consequences to be real. I don't know what they are or what they should be but there should be some. Furthermore there is a lack of rozzers. The cops should be more active in pursuing murderers. Seriously more active. They should be relentless in their pursuit of murderers and their presence in a system should alert all cops.
People who want PVP combat is fair enough, so create armies/navies and contested regions whereby these peeps can have their PVP and leave us civilians alone to trade to support their war effort.
I'm not interested in PVP combat. If I want that I will go play BF or COD. What I want is an immersive game where I can believe in a future of advancement and civilisation. Where there is coordination and cooperation to a better end. Not some anarchic war fest. Even the wild west moved from anarchy to civilisation over a few hundred yrs. There appears no reward for morality or ethics.
There needs to be more consequences for players actions. When I first heard of the Fuel Rats, my first thought was - fantastic, what a great thing to do and what a great bunch of people. Apparently other people thought - Hmm how can I disrupt that, how can I take advantage of it, How can I peeve people off. Why? Because there are no tangible or realistic consequences for their actions.
People hide behind their PC boxes like road rage perpetrators in their cars. In face to face contact these self same people would not behave like they do behind the PC or in the box. But for some reason they believe they can sit remotely from humanity and behave like they want, be rude, be nasty. Its trolling in a sense. This remoteness gives some people the belief that they are untouchable and to a greater extent, they are.
You see PVPers, there are some people who are just friendly and kind and nice both offline and online. People who wouldnt dream of dicting people because they dont wish to appear nasty or cruel even in roleplay. You may call it a weakness but I see it as a strength. This is the positive side of humanity that has brought you these technologies. Through cooperation and coordination. All the negative side ever brought us was death and misery. Look around you, its all over the world today. In the yr 3301 do you seriously expect us as a species to have stood still? You make choices and you choose death and misery, I make choices and I choose cooperation and kindness. I know which choice is the correct one for the yr 3301.
But its the game mechanics you say and to be fair you are correct but you can still make the choice how you do it. Your choices define you in ways you do not realise. Personally I'd choose to play nicely.
Anyways I'm a dreamer.
The problem as I see it in open, is that murderers have no consequences to their actions. They can just kill at will with no consequences other than a fine or a wanted tag or a bounty. Killing someone has to have consequences to be real. I don't know what they are or what they should be but there should be some. Furthermore there is a lack of rozzers. The cops should be more active in pursuing murderers. Seriously more active. They should be relentless in their pursuit of murderers and their presence in a system should alert all cops.
People who want PVP combat is fair enough, so create armies/navies and contested regions whereby these peeps can have their PVP and leave us civilians alone to trade to support their war effort.
I'm not interested in PVP combat. If I want that I will go play BF or COD. What I want is an immersive game where I can believe in a future of advancement and civilisation. Where there is coordination and cooperation to a better end. Not some anarchic war fest. Even the wild west moved from anarchy to civilisation over a few hundred yrs. There appears no reward for morality or ethics.
There needs to be more consequences for players actions. When I first heard of the Fuel Rats, my first thought was - fantastic, what a great thing to do and what a great bunch of people. Apparently other people thought - Hmm how can I disrupt that, how can I take advantage of it, How can I peeve people off. Why? Because there are no tangible or realistic consequences for their actions.
People hide behind their PC boxes like road rage perpetrators in their cars. In face to face contact these self same people would not behave like they do behind the PC or in the box. But for some reason they believe they can sit remotely from humanity and behave like they want, be rude, be nasty. Its trolling in a sense. This remoteness gives some people the belief that they are untouchable and to a greater extent, they are.
You see PVPers, there are some people who are just friendly and kind and nice both offline and online. People who wouldnt dream of dicting people because they dont wish to appear nasty or cruel even in roleplay. You may call it a weakness but I see it as a strength. This is the positive side of humanity that has brought you these technologies. Through cooperation and coordination. All the negative side ever brought us was death and misery. Look around you, its all over the world today. In the yr 3301 do you seriously expect us as a species to have stood still? You make choices and you choose death and misery, I make choices and I choose cooperation and kindness. I know which choice is the correct one for the yr 3301.
But its the game mechanics you say and to be fair you are correct but you can still make the choice how you do it. Your choices define you in ways you do not realise. Personally I'd choose to play nicely.
Anyways I'm a dreamer.
Last edited:
Why is is not another dynamic to the game? This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.. You seem to want some kind of one dimensional game play dynamic.
You're going to campaign to have all hard points removed from ships unless used for mining next..
This isn't a space version of Monopoly by a long shot and it certainly wasn't what i bought into when i signed up for Beta.
You simply can't accept that weapons figure into this game too. *bangs head*
There's no trouble accepting weapons in Elite. I don;t see your complaint reflected in this thread. What's being said is, within the PP system there is no goal that is benefited by PvP. Everything is completed within a PvE context. Every task, or goal is a head to head race to complete PvE activity. This allows all 3 modes to be effective. When the poster you quoted said "...they want (pewpew) when it is not part of the game." he/she should have said "...not part of PP".
Not at all! PP *can* work that way, but there is also the added dynamic of possibly being shot down if you're coming into my faction's territory and trying to undermine us for instance.
And that's not the pew-pew crowd at all. That's opposition that goes hand in hand with the PP mechanic and is clearly a valid tactic.
I have a question regarding the sense of this whole discussion.
FD officially stated, more than a thousand times, that they will never-ever divide the groups from the galaxy/unviverse/background sim.
At the end of this post I will state my opinion on this as well but for now ...
What is the point in discussion groups if FD strongly discourages any change to groups? I myself can't find a reason for that so i would be glad if someone could tell me the reasons for this decision.
With this in mind, any requests to divide up the modes are pointless. With this, what is the goal of this whole discussion? Well, I have thought about that and came to the conclusion that there are (not even small) differences between the modes regarding risk/reward stuff. So what is the main reason for this discussion or what are the inequalities between the modes which are considered to be a problem?
And now at the end, will this discussion have any influence in the near future?
I'd be glad if some of you could answer the underlined questions.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now to my opinion: FD have stated that "Solo, group and open play are all equal ways to play Elite: Dangerous."
In my opinion FD has failed to make the modes equal. There is clearly an advantage in the solo and group mode -> No PvP risks. While having the same rewards but a much lower risk is in my eyes not an equal way of playing the game.
So to adress that I would suggest the following:
- Add mode-exclusive player interactions. Player interactions are only available in one mode. For the beginning I would add a player market where players can offer ships/weapons/cargo for a set price. The offer would be visible through the whole universe but the item can only be bought at the station the offer was created.
The visibility is only for the specific mode. That means a player creating an offer in a group will likely have less success than creating an offer in open due to the offer only being visible in the specific mode.
- Add extreme missions. These missions would require atleast a set amount of players to be successful. For example a mission that asks you to deliver 5000 tonnes of minerals in less than one hour. This would encourage groups and open play, while solo players have likely no chance to archieve this goal (maybe a T9).
aWhile this sounds unfair for solo players, think about the current situation of the modes. Solo palyers have around 0% risk. open players have 100% risk. Group players have likely less risks than open players. Also, solo players have access to these missions, it is just less likely that they will be able to end them. This would encourage to take more risk while gaining more reward. Plus it would encourage players to form groups (player interactions!).
- Community goals should focus more on player interactions. Example: Kill wanted ships in system X. For every NPC kill you get around 30k cr bounty. This should stay like that. For killing a wanted player, you get a bonus at the end of the community goal. Let'S say we have killed around 10 (wanted) players during the CG. At the end of it, we can claim the reward BUT it is multiplied by 1.5 so we have an icnreased 50% income from the CG due to killing players as they are harder to kill as NPCs and are generally considered to be a challenge compared to NPCs.
For trading CGs I would suggest a combination with the extreme missions. An example would be that if a group of players manages to get around 5000 tonnes in time, they will also get icnreased income at the end of the CG.
No idea about exploration CGs, sorry.
- Ingame PowerPlay interaction system. I take part in Powerplay sicne its launch and I like it, even though it has many many balancing issues and broken mechanics. The main activity I am currently doing (apart from farming merits) is pulling players out of SC and demand them to leave their power or defect to mine. If they refuse, pew pew. I think if this would be an actual ingame feature (let it be player created missions), rewards could be earned by successfully sending the target player a mission (just like NPCs do in USS or "I have important information for you"-missions) whic hare worth around 100 merits, 1 million credits or whatnot. Or maybe a special module for your ship if you successfully defected 50 players to your faction?
All these suggestions have no restrictions for the modes. But the modes restrict themselves. The aim is to not "nerf" a specific mode but rather to offer more features whic hrequire the use of group but especially open play.
All palyers, regardless the modes used, have access to all of these feature but a solo palyer will never every be able to claim rewards from defecting other players, since he/she decided to not interact with players.
TL;DR: Add player interaction rewards. It should encourage the use of group but especially open play while not nerfing the solo mode. The aim is to get more reward from the higher risk you have to deal with in open mode.
Thoughts?
FD officially stated, more than a thousand times, that they will never-ever divide the groups from the galaxy/unviverse/background sim.
At the end of this post I will state my opinion on this as well but for now ...
What is the point in discussion groups if FD strongly discourages any change to groups? I myself can't find a reason for that so i would be glad if someone could tell me the reasons for this decision.
With this in mind, any requests to divide up the modes are pointless. With this, what is the goal of this whole discussion? Well, I have thought about that and came to the conclusion that there are (not even small) differences between the modes regarding risk/reward stuff. So what is the main reason for this discussion or what are the inequalities between the modes which are considered to be a problem?
And now at the end, will this discussion have any influence in the near future?
I'd be glad if some of you could answer the underlined questions.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now to my opinion: FD have stated that "Solo, group and open play are all equal ways to play Elite: Dangerous."
In my opinion FD has failed to make the modes equal. There is clearly an advantage in the solo and group mode -> No PvP risks. While having the same rewards but a much lower risk is in my eyes not an equal way of playing the game.
So to adress that I would suggest the following:
- Add mode-exclusive player interactions. Player interactions are only available in one mode. For the beginning I would add a player market where players can offer ships/weapons/cargo for a set price. The offer would be visible through the whole universe but the item can only be bought at the station the offer was created.
The visibility is only for the specific mode. That means a player creating an offer in a group will likely have less success than creating an offer in open due to the offer only being visible in the specific mode.
- Add extreme missions. These missions would require atleast a set amount of players to be successful. For example a mission that asks you to deliver 5000 tonnes of minerals in less than one hour. This would encourage groups and open play, while solo players have likely no chance to archieve this goal (maybe a T9).
aWhile this sounds unfair for solo players, think about the current situation of the modes. Solo palyers have around 0% risk. open players have 100% risk. Group players have likely less risks than open players. Also, solo players have access to these missions, it is just less likely that they will be able to end them. This would encourage to take more risk while gaining more reward. Plus it would encourage players to form groups (player interactions!).
- Community goals should focus more on player interactions. Example: Kill wanted ships in system X. For every NPC kill you get around 30k cr bounty. This should stay like that. For killing a wanted player, you get a bonus at the end of the community goal. Let'S say we have killed around 10 (wanted) players during the CG. At the end of it, we can claim the reward BUT it is multiplied by 1.5 so we have an icnreased 50% income from the CG due to killing players as they are harder to kill as NPCs and are generally considered to be a challenge compared to NPCs.
For trading CGs I would suggest a combination with the extreme missions. An example would be that if a group of players manages to get around 5000 tonnes in time, they will also get icnreased income at the end of the CG.
No idea about exploration CGs, sorry.
- Ingame PowerPlay interaction system. I take part in Powerplay sicne its launch and I like it, even though it has many many balancing issues and broken mechanics. The main activity I am currently doing (apart from farming merits) is pulling players out of SC and demand them to leave their power or defect to mine. If they refuse, pew pew. I think if this would be an actual ingame feature (let it be player created missions), rewards could be earned by successfully sending the target player a mission (just like NPCs do in USS or "I have important information for you"-missions) whic hare worth around 100 merits, 1 million credits or whatnot. Or maybe a special module for your ship if you successfully defected 50 players to your faction?
All these suggestions have no restrictions for the modes. But the modes restrict themselves. The aim is to not "nerf" a specific mode but rather to offer more features whic hrequire the use of group but especially open play.
All palyers, regardless the modes used, have access to all of these feature but a solo palyer will never every be able to claim rewards from defecting other players, since he/she decided to not interact with players.
TL;DR: Add player interaction rewards. It should encourage the use of group but especially open play while not nerfing the solo mode. The aim is to get more reward from the higher risk you have to deal with in open mode.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
The reason for the threadnaught is a quarantine to stop the whole discussion board being filled up with the same questions over and over again. they all get moved here so they can be "discussed" (circularly and without end) by both ancient, old and new contributors alike!
hey, that's my line!
Move away from the hotspots and Open becomes just like Solo. This has been raised and debunked many times already.
+rep for not saying "just give us moar credits" though.
Hell no. Any mode exclusive feature, whatever it may be, is a no-no. Doing that that would effectively destroy the equality between modes.
I like this idea as long as anyone can access them without requirements (except maybe Pilot's Federation ranks). Add in extreme combat missions and it'll finally give me a reason to wing up with friends. I like zis.
*sigh*
Bonus for killing player criminals ? Why not, that's not a bad idea. But I'd like to see a malus for players signed up to the CG that end up killing clean players. They'd end up as a priority target or their pay would be cut. Thoughts ?
Rewards for making players defecting for your faction ? I like this too.
As long as those player interaction rewards are not completely over the roof, I'd personnally agree with that.
THE POWER OF FUN COMPELS YOU!
THE POWER OF FUN COMPELS YOU!
THE POWER OF FUN COMPELS YOU!
[borrows a chortle from Cody]
Oh, I believe in weapons. My Anaconda is full of 'em
And a great example of "WHOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHH"
- - - Updated - - -
You're right, and stirred up something I mightn't have. "not part of PP" is correct.
thx
Last edited:
Move away from the hotspots and Open becomes just like Solo. This has been raised and debunked many times already.
+rep for not saying "just give us moar credits" though.
Hell no. Any mode exclusive feature, whatever it may be, is a no-no. Doing that that would effectively destroy the equality between modes.
Well, the feature is available in all modes but you can only connect these within a specific mode. For example, an offer created in open mode will only be available and visible in open play. The same applies for groups and solo. A solo offer will have 0% success rate and the group mode will only have offers within the specific group. (For the offer example)
I like this idea as long as anyone can access them without requirements (except maybe Pilot's Federation ranks). Add in extreme combat missions and it'll finally give me a reason to wing up with friends. I like zis.
Yes, extreme missions should be available in all modes. However, it is unlikely that a solo player will be able to kill 6 Anacondas at once. Maybe if he/she owns an uber anaconda, yes, but a wing of 3 or 4 will most likely have better chances to win.
*sigh*
Mimimi.
Bonus for killing player criminals ? Why not, that's not a bad idea. But I'd like to see a malus for players signed up to the CG that end up killing clean players. They'd end up as a priority target or their pay would be cut. Thoughts ?
Well why not, killing a clean player removes the bonus reward earned up to then. Why not cutting ALL the rewards?
Rewards for making players defecting for your faction ? I like this too.
Yay!
As long as those player interaction rewards are not completely over the roof, I'd personnally agree with that.
Ofcourse, you shouldn't get 1000 merits for one player defection, this would be too exploitable but around 100 merits is alright I guess since you can only defect once a day. Additionally, if the player is at rank 4, earn 300 merits or whatnot. Balancing is not my task to do
Answers in red.
You know, I might even go for some of these suggestions (modified of course).
Just as long as we also get multiplying/sticky bounties attached to a CMDR and not to a ship, particularly repeat CMDRs who are obviously playing to grief. Stuff up to and including shadowbanning.
Also, some teeth on the Navy and station police.
Yes, then I might consider some minor buffs to open... but wait...
If you got rid of
"the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, heads"*
You might not even need to buff open
* quote from Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Last edited:
- Status