I do like how people try to sneak suggestions of nerfing Solo / Group to make Open the only mode to play.
- Status
I do like how people try to sneak suggestions of nerfing Solo / Group to make Open the only mode to play.
Have to remember English isn't their native tongue, so maybe a bad wording and not a sneaky suggestion *shrug*. I took it as a suggestion to beef the security forces of Solo/group to a point where those who PK then try to hide would think twice before going to hide as they would have a higher change of getting blasted by NPC..
while I don't' agree with upping police to that level just in solo/group I don't feel the suggestion was a sly attempt at forcing people to open.. just the PKer.. but yes police at that level would have a detrimental effect to others beyond the Pker.
In my opinion that wouldn't be a problem if the difference is based on the main difference between the modes: other players.
If a player gets a bounty for killing an other CMDR and paying the bounty in Open (because the offender got killed or after the bounty turned dormant) is cheaper than paying that bounty in Solo (and maybe group mode) that difference between modes would only be based on the presence/absence of other players.
It doesn't have to be a different cost for paying the bounty. An other option could be to make the time until the bounty for killing a CMDR gets dormant only count down if the player is in open mode (or in group mode if CMDR got the bounty there).
Good thing it was a qualified statement then.
(colour, bold, and underline mine)
It wasn't my intention to make playing in solo or group mode a worse choice for everybody and it wasn't my intention to make Open mode the only mode to play.
I wanted to offer an option to locking players into open mode if they have a bounty from killing a CMDR. An option that allows players to switch modes while motivating the "offender" to stay in Open mode without forcing the "offender" to stay in open mode.
Good thing it was a qualified statement then.
(colour, bold, and underline mine)
What Robert and Jockey are looking at though is .. just buffing the NPC police in Solo/Group would imbalance the modes and make Open more preferable for those who engage in illegal activities due to the NPC police being different in other modes.. so it inadvertently pushes people out of other modes and makes one mode "preferable" .
Currently the only thing really making one mode preferable over others.. is other players.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Good thing it was a qualified statement then.
(colour, bold, and underline mine)
Why should two of the three modes respond differently to a player than the other mode at any time, for any reason? The only difference between the modes is the number of players that will possibly be encountered.
Ah, now if cargo insurance worked in cases of piracy, then that is insta-exploit if the insurance payout is decent. Team up with a friend and get "pirated" is a win-win then.
Its also a bit tricky if it was paid out on destruction, because then traders would have even less reason to hand over cargo to a pirate. Too few players are willing to play along with pirates as it is. Imagine what would happen if the trader could just laugh at the pirate and say "Ok, blow me up, i'm insured for loss, you get nothing. . na na na".
I must have misread something then. I thought the suggestion was for a strong NPC response (regardless of mode). My take was that there would be no point in switching modes because the stronger threat would be from NPCs... which are in all modes. If that's not what was suggested... maybe it should have been.
I'm for a strong AI response (governed by location/politics) in general. Partly because I think it would help a little with wanton murder. Partly because to me it makes more sense.
NPC police should be the same in all modes.
Maybe it could be piracy insurance? If you're forced to hand over your cargo, then you get covered by insurance. If you're silly enough to let your cargo get destroyed along with your ship - sorry.
This wouldn't help reduce the pain from griefers though.
Fair comment then, sorry for misunderstanding.
As for "motivating the "offender" to stay in Open" - there is no way, without upsetting the balance to do that.
Which is why a direct penalty to the "offender" is the better choice, as it only has an impact on the offender and nobody else.
If a player killer is locked for the duration of their bounty to open (and the clear save option removed for the same time to prevent griefing by clearing ave to bypass the system) this solves 2 problems;
1) People will not be so keen to be player killers in the first place - as they know they would have to face the consequences of it
2) Player Bounty Hunters would have players to hunt - helping that profession thrive. As at the moment it is a dead profession.
All the BGS / NPC interactions are equal in all mode at the moment, it could do with some tweaks - but that is another topic for another thread.
Still, it must be there on the display for a reason
And nobody expects a 100% insurance coverage, the display itself is in percentage. Fact is, it is there above ship insurance, it's not in the game, and in my opinion it is something that is needed, because as explained in two threadnaughts by now, the pew-pewer doesn't risk anything, the trader risks a lot more then the ship if the cargo hold is full.Also a long-long time ago I argued that destroying a ship that carries say.. imperial slaves, should incure not jut a murder for the pilot, but also for the 200 tons (brrrr) of people. If we go strictly by math that's around 14.2 people per ton, so for 200 tons of slaves, you'd incure the penalty for killing 200 x 14 = 2800 people
There you go, nice bounty right there.And yes, it sounds silly, but then again the attacker just did the equivalent of sinking the Titanic with everyone on board.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I must have misread something then. I thought the suggestion was for a strong NPC response (regardless of mode). My take was that there would be no point in switching modes because the stronger threat would be from NPCs... which are in all modes. If that's not what was suggested... maybe it should have been.
I'm for a strong AI response (governed by location/politics) in general. Partly because I think it would help a little with wanton murder. Partly because to me it makes more sense.
The proposal to make modes other than Open "not so good choice" would imply that the one of the modes would no longer treat the player the same as the other two.
I agree about the need to improve NPC response.
Thanks for the clarification.
Insta-exploit: buy expensive cargo; insure it; get "pirated" by a friend - drop all cargo; return to station to claim on "losses"; profit!
Well there's an easy fix for that - the more you get pirated the higher the insurance fee.
Isn't that why it was never implemented in the first place?
I swear I seen this brought up somewhere before :S
I was about to suggest this. Same with ship insurance. If you're not in combat, no excuse for repeated losses.
I don't see a profit in your "Insta-exploit" example. The person buying the cargo and paying for cargo insurance would be taking a loss, unless the amount insurance paid was higher then the buying cost, which wouldn't make sense. If insurance payed 70% of the cargo cost, the buyer would be out 30% plus the cost of insurance. Am I missing something?
That's a very good point. And now that I've read that, I vaguely remember making that point in another thread. Technically, the "pirate" would still benefit. But surely there has to be easier ways of making credits. :/
If the pirate is your friend, after you've claimed your insurance to get what ever % back, they then can give you some cargo back (which you can sell normally as it is yours after all) to make up the small loss from the claim and they sell the rest for themselves.
So 2 people could abuse the life out of that system, right outside a station with a black market to make it twice as easy for the "pirate" palyer
Last edited:
- Status