Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Marcns007]

I would go with the incentive for traders in open.

What about nerfing weapons for someone who persistently kills traders for fun, they loose their shields or downgrade weaponry?

 

[M00ka]

Surely the "reward" for playing in Open is playing among others?

If players were awarded across the board for playing in Open then most of the bonus would be misdirected, in my opinion, as the vast majority of Open is exactly the same as Solo, i.e. devoid of other players.

An alternative approach would be for players who are attacked by other players to lose less on destruction of their ship - less loss is a bonus that is only paid after an adverse encounter, not all the time.

Also, Open players already receive a bonus - being able to form a Wing, safety in numbers, receive trade dividends, share bounties, etc. - Solo players can't do that.

How about the bounties for NPCs in open are reduced, after all they aren't the main targets there - those playing in Open have the added benefit of making credits on the Commander bounties.

I also like the idea of more severe penalties for PKérs in Open but there are enough 'ways' for someone to clear their bounties that it would be meaningless.

 

[Robert Maynard]

How about the bounties for NPCs in open are reduced, after all they aren't the main targets there - those playing in Open have the added benefit of making credits on the Commander bounties.

I also like the idea of more severe penalties for PKérs in Open but there are enough 'ways' for someone to clear their bounties that it would be meaningless.

I disagree with the idea that players are the main targets in Open - NPCs vastly outnumber players in all of the three game modes. To reduce bounty vouchers for destroying NPCs would penalise any players in Open who don't prey exclusively on other players.

More severe penalties (and Faction / Galactic level bounties) would be nice rather than the negligible values at the moment that are limited to a single system and therefore practically meaningless as a deterrent.

 

[gandik]

Surely the "reward" for playing in Open is playing among others?

If players were awarded across the board for playing in Open then most of the bonus would be misdirected, in my opinion, as the vast majority of Open is exactly the same as Solo, i.e. devoid of other players.

An alternative approach would be for players who are attacked by other players to lose less on destruction of their ship - less loss is a bonus that is only paid after an adverse encounter, not all the time.

Also, Open players already receive a bonus - being able to form a Wing, safety in numbers, receive trade dividends, share bounties, etc. - Solo players can't do that.

and how many traders go open to try this new oportunities of fliing in wings? they are safe in solo so why use wings? i have five friens ingame,traders fliing anacondas or llacon 9 and if i ask them if they want go play open whith me they ask why? i tell them i can protect you on you trade rute in wing and they ask me again why?

I think that some financial bonus for traders would be enough to at least occasionally try play open

 

[Robert Maynard]

and how many traders go open to try this new oportunities of fliing in wings? they are safe in solo so why use wings? i have five friens ingame,traders fliing anacondas or llacon 9 and if i ask them if they want go play online whith me they ask why? i tell them i can protect you on you trade rute in wing and they ask me again why?

I think that some financial bonus for traders would be enough to at least occasionally try play open

If a player chooses to play in Solo then that is their choice. Frontier is on record as holding the opinion that all modes are equal and valid - they have not chosen to incentivise play in any of the three game modes (and it has been requested for quite some time now).

There is a financial bonus for traders in Open - form a Wing with other traders and receive 5% of the other three Wing members profits - if everyone was carrying the same cargoes on the same route then that's a 15% bonus right there!

 

[gandik]

If a player chooses to play in Solo then that is their choice. Frontier is on record as holding the opinion that all modes are equal and valid - they have not chosen to incentivise play in any of the three game modes (and it has been requested for quite some time now).

There is a financial bonus for traders in Open - form a Wing with other traders and receive 5% of the other three Wing members profits - if everyone was carrying the same cargoes on the same route then that's a 15% bonus right there!

yes i know but for traders. not for combat escort. you really think that 5% is enough reward for combat escort?

as a pirate whith good pvp ship i cannot by hapiest finding wing of traders :] but trader whith good combat escort .......

 

[Robert Maynard]

yes i know but for traders. not for combat escort. you really think that 5% is enough reward for combat escort?

So you're not really asking for an incentive for players to play in Open - you're asking for more reward for a particular role, i.e. fighter escort.

I would agree that traders should be able to choose to profit share with Wing members, e.g. Trader elects to profit share 36%; trader makes 500,000 Cr. profit; trader shares 180,000 Cr. with Wing members, 60,000 Cr. each. This would be in addition to the 5% (25,000 Cr.) Wing Trade Dividend.

I would not agree that the game needs to provide (more) free credits to players who prefer multi-player.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

yes i know but for traders. not for combat escort. you really think that 5% is enough reward for combat escort?

it is a difficult one to balance tho. Right now most of the combat ships are insanely cheap compared to the big trade ships. 5% of a a brace of pythons and a Lakon T9 to a pilot flying in a Viper, eagle, scout, courier, cobra or adder would be a LOT of money.

Maybe the improved mission generators will help going forward. So long as the missions make sense and actually give missions to good trade routes, say the above wing of 3 ships are with you and there was a mission on the BB to escort a type 7 carrying imperial slaves to (insert system here with demand for imperial slaves) then you as the escort could take that mission, taking a flat fee for that, AND the 3 traders in your wing can come with you as well.

That way you get the pay and the rep for completing the BB mission, AND you get your 5% on top, as well as have 1 route of a possibly new lucrative trade route to note for the future

 

[Mouse]

as a pirate whith good pvp ship i cannot by hapiest finding wing of traders :] but trader whith good combat escort .......

I think you answered your own question about why your friends asked why.

 

[M00ka]

I disagree with the idea that players are the main targets in Open - NPCs vastly outnumber players in all of the three game modes. To reduce bounty vouchers for destroying NPCs would penalise any players in Open who don't prey exclusively on other players.

More severe penalties (and Faction / Galactic level bounties) would be nice rather than the negligible values at the moment that are limited to a single system and therefore practically meaningless as a deterrent.

Yeah you are right, it was a kind of lazy thought of mine. But going by some of the pro-Open proponents here, all they want in Open is 'player interaction' which means them hunting other Commanders (this is very strong from the Pirate fraternity). They don't care about incurring bounties because the bounties don't mean squat presently. I did come up with a suggestion a little while ago but it met with very luke warm, some might even say frigid reception lol

Here is the thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=170699

Have a read and let me know what you think or what needs to be changed to make it more suitable.

 

[gandik]

So you're not really asking for an incentive for players to play in Open - you're asking for more reward for a particular role, i.e. fighter escort.

I would agree that traders should be able to choose to profit share with Wing members, e.g. Trader elects to profit share 36%; trader makes 500,000 Cr. profit; trader shares 180,000 Cr. with Wing members, 60,000 Cr. each. This would be in addition to the 5% (25,000 Cr.) Wing Trade Dividend.

I would not agree that the game needs to provide (more) free credits to players who prefer multi-player.

me first suggestion in this topic is give flat credit bonus for all but now after i read opinions of other players i thinking about give bonus for traders.

traders are fearing losing ships and cargo in open not the pirates or bountyhunters but if ED provide better bonus for fliing in wings , making combat escort another profitable role it can be enough.

 

[Robert Maynard]

me first suggestion in this topic is give flat credit bonus for all but now after i read opinions of other players i thinking about give bonus for traders.

traders are fearing losing ships and cargo in open not the pirates or bountyhunters but if ED provide better bonus for fliing in wings , making combat escort another profitable role it can be enough.

A bonus that pays out to all players is ill-targeted - it does not pay out only to those who are affected by the thing that separates Solo from Open, i.e. other players.

A different approach, that would only pay out in the event that a trader had their ship destroyed by a player, would be to reduce the financial impact of the loss - maybe by reducing the insurance excess on rebuy. Another possibility would be to allow traders to purchase cargo insurance (it is very obviously in the game somewhere as it is shown on the right-hand HUD at 0%) when in multi-player.

 

[gandik]

A different approach, that would only pay out in the event that a trader had their ship destroyed by a player, would be to reduce the financial impact of the loss - maybe by reducing the insurance excess on rebuy. Another possibility would be to allow traders to purchase cargo insurance (it is very obviously in the game somewhere as it is shown on the right-hand HUD at 0%) when in multi-player.

good idea too..

 

[M00ka]

A bonus that pays out to all players is ill-targeted - it does not pay out only to those who are affected by the thing that separates Solo from Open, i.e. other players.

A different approach, that would only pay out in the event that a trader had their ship destroyed by a player, would be to reduce the financial impact of the loss - maybe by reducing the insurance excess on rebuy. Another possibility would be to allow traders to purchase cargo insurance (it is very obviously in the game somewhere as it is shown on the right-hand HUD at 0%) when in multi-player.

How about if a player kills a Clean rated Commander, the bounty incurred includes the rebuy cost of the ship he just destroyed, but the cost of any cargo the ship was carrying?

 

[Robert Maynard]

How about if a player kills a Clean rated Commander, the bounty incurred includes the rebuy cost of the ship he just destroyed, but the cost of any cargo the ship was carrying?

On first inspection that would appear to be quite an onerous change to piracy - a Type 9 filled with palladium would incur a bounty in excess of 10M Cr!

One other option would be for the Elite Federation of Pilots to offer free cargo insurance to clean (at the time of embarking cargo) Commanders, same percentage rebuy cost as for the ship.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

How about if a player kills a Clean rated Commander, the bounty incurred includes the rebuy cost of the ship he just destroyed, but the cost of any cargo the ship was carrying?

I try to look at ED as something like as believable as possible guess at what life may be like in 1000 years time if hyperspace was possible. So with this in mind I think the laws and consequences should be believable too.

so if a crime is committed in a lawless system then imo the repercussions should be less than if committed in a high sec one... in hi sec I agree it should be as you said - tho not all on a bounty, some would go to the pilots federation as well as the insurance company. I also think continual destruction of "clean" members of the pilots federation should get us booted from it, and lose the benefits we get of being in there.

So imo when thinking what should the repercussions be for blowing up a clean player in the game, the question is what do you think they would be in real life?.... imo this should start as a basis for repercussions in ED... albeit "long lasting" in elite should be a matter of weeks to clear your name not years like i the real world imo..... but I absolutely think getting blown up, then potentially captured and put in prison would be cool..... stripped of all assets you then have to escape - or have a member of a faction you are allied with break you out - tho some of this can only really happen a number of DLCs down the line!.

 

[gandik]

One other option would be for the Elite Federation of Pilots to offer free cargo insurance to clean (at the time of embarking cargo) Commanders, same percentage rebuy cost as for the ship.

i support this [but only in open]

 

[Mouse]

i support this [but only in open]

why just in open? traders in group and solo face danger too

 

[M.E.A.T]

How about if a player kills a Clean rated Commander, the bounty incurred includes the rebuy cost of the ship he just destroyed, but the cost of any cargo the ship was carrying?

I don't mind that, but that only protect the traders with high value goods. What about other players in cheaper ship getting ganked?

I would also add a feature that the system's security rating should play role in the response time of system authorities. Also, system security should pose a "real" danger, i.e., low chance of surviving the encounter especially in the high security system (of course, with lower security rating system/poor system you should have higher chance of escaping). The rate of npc pirate's spawn also should reflect the security level of the system.

This should make pirate think at least twice before engaging and ganking for sake of *hits and giggles will be pretty costly.

 

[M00ka]

I don't mind that, but that only protect the traders with high value goods. What about other players in cheaper ship getting ganked?

I would also add a feature that the system's security rating should play role in the response time of system authorities. Also, system security should pose a "real" danger, i.e., low chance of surviving the encounter especially in the high security system (of course, with lower security rating system/poor system you should have higher chance of escaping). The rate of npc pirate's spawn also should reflect the security level of the system.

This should make pirate think at least twice before engaging and ganking for sake of *hits and giggles will be pretty costly.

Good point, hopefully those will basic ships and low cost cargo won't be interdicted and it won't be worth it to the pirate/ganker.