Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[smiths121]

The idea of forcing a player into open when they had a bounty has been floating around since DDF.
It is an elegant solution, but cannot be implemented in the current architecture. Those with rubbish internet connections would be forced into open, spoiling the game for themselves and others, and especially the bounty hunters. Ed has rudimentary instance matching based on application ping time, so bounty hunters might not evem get into the same instance as the criminal.

Virgin Media went down, and I played ED in solo very nicely with a few hundred K bandwidth over a wireless hotspot to my mobile for an afternoon. I did try open - no go.

Simon

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.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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?

If insurance paid out 70% of the cargo cost and if the pirate got 50% selling stolen goods to a black market then that's 20% to the good for the two players.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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?

Anything higher than 50% payout on insurance would result in an overall win for both (if they shared the profits). Pirates sells goods on black market for 50%, trader gets 50%+ from insurance. That's over the 100% originally paid.

Ok, at 50% levels-ish it doesn't make much sense. I'm just assuming that if cargo insurance wasn't at least 80% we would have a dozen threads within a day of people complaining that the new cargo insurance feature is worthless.

 

[Jockey79]

The idea of forcing a player into open when they had a bounty has been floating around since DDF.
It is an elegant solution, but cannot be implemented in the current architecture. Those with rubbish internet connections would be forced into open, spoiling the game for themselves and others, and especially the bounty hunters. Ed has rudimentary instance matching based on application ping time, so bounty hunters might not evem get into the same instance as the criminal.

Virgin Media went down, and I played ED in solo very nicely with a few hundred K bandwidth over a wireless hotspot to my mobile for an afternoon. I did try open - no go.

Simon

Well, there is the option to lock the bounty and the bounty timer to the mode it was earned in.
So if a player jumps in to Open, goes on a player killing spree - the bounties could only be collected in Open and the timer would pause while not in Open.
Also, taking the money out of their pockets when the bounty is paid out + 25% means having friends collect would leave you out of pocket.

Also making it account based so clearing the save does not help would be good.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Anything higher than 50% payout on insurance would result in an overall win for both (if they shared the profits). Pirates sells goods on black market for 50%, trader gets 50%+ from insurance. That's over the 100% originally paid.

Ok, at 50% levels-ish it doesn't make much sense. I'm just assuming that if cargo insurance wasn't at least 80% we would have a dozen threads within a day of people complaining that the new cargo insurance feature is worthless.

Don't forget that the pirate could be in a Wing of 4 players - adding another 7.5% (3x 5% x 50%) in Trade Dividends.

 

[Roland2]

If insurance paid out 70% of the cargo cost and if the pirate got 50% selling stolen goods to a black market then that's 20% to the good for the two players.

Ok, I can see that. Are there any one or two jump trade routes that pay 20% profit? If so, the exploit is saving some time, and forcing the first player to share the profits. Doesn't seem too game breaking to me.

 

[Khelder]

Don't forget that the pirate could be in a Wing of 4 players - adding another 7.5% (3x 5% x 50%) in Trade Dividends.

I still think it's an insanely boring way of making profit. And adjustments to insurance coverage, as mentioned, would limit this. Thinking about it though, the bigger problem would be determining when the cargo was lost to a piracy event and not just a press-the-eject-by-mistake stuff up. I don't think 'piracy insurance' would really work.

Are we getting off track though? This is supposed to be a discussion about modes.

The main reason why I'd like to bring some sort of balancing (or pain reduction) for crime victims is to encourage more players to stay in Open. Because Open is best.

There. Fixed it.

 

[Jockey79]

I still think it's an insanely boring way of making profit.

People say that about honest trading, yet others quite enjoy it (myself for example)
I don't mind mining for a change of pace, but about 2 - 3 hours a month is my limit. Yet I have a friend who can sit there 12 hours a day doing it.

Just because you may not like something, does not mean we all dislike it.
Some players would sit there and abuse the system even for a modest profit, if the location and relative speed suited them better than real trading / piracy

Because Open is best.

In your opinion.

I feel Open is a waste of time and private groups are the way to go.
And this is supported by it being open players that are moaning and not the Solo / Group players

no open = no problems

 

[Robert Maynard]

I still think it's an insanely boring way of making profit. And adjustments to insurance coverage, as mentioned, would limit this. Thinking about it though, the bigger problem would be determining when the cargo was lost to a piracy event and not just a press-the-eject-by-mistake stuff up. I don't think 'piracy insurance' would really work.

I would agree that "piracy insurance" would seem to be exploitable.

Are we getting off track though? This is supposed to be a discussion about modes.

We're discussing how to mitigate player losses to piracy. Player pirates quite like to prey on player traders and sometimes bemoan the fact that there don't seem to be any making themselves available for plunder in Open.

The main reason why I'd like to bring some sort of balancing (or pain reduction) for crime victims is to encourage more players to stay in Open. Because Open is best.

There. Fixed it.

One proposal that has been suggested a few times is to reduce loss in the event that a clean player is destroyed by another player. It could be rationalised (loosely) as compensation from the Pilots' Federation after another member has caused loss to a clean member. This would be a targeted benefit to players as it would only pay out in the event that the player was clean and destroyed by another player.

You're quite entitled to hold the opinion that "Open is best". Other opinions vary, of course.

 

[Mouse]

I still think it's an insanely boring way of making profit. And adjustments to insurance coverage, as mentioned, would limit this. Thinking about it though, the bigger problem would be determining when the cargo was lost to a piracy event and not just a press-the-eject-by-mistake stuff up. I don't think 'piracy insurance' would really work.

Are we getting off track though? This is supposed to be a discussion about modes.

The main reason why I'd like to bring some sort of balancing (or pain reduction) for crime victims is to encourage more players to stay in Open. Because Open is best.

There. Fixed it.

In it's current incarnation, I believe Open is the worst, make it so there are two Opens one PVP and PVe and then I may agree with you.

 

[Khelder]

People say that about honest trading, yet others quite enjoy it (myself for example)
I don't mind mining for a change of pace, but about 2 - 3 hours a month is my limit. Yet I have a friend who can sit there 12 hours a day doing it.

Just because you may not like something, does not mean we all dislike it.
Some players would sit there and abuse the system even for a modest profit, if the location and relative speed suited them better than real trading / piracy

That's perfect! We can just introduce a new profession to ED... Insurance fraud.

 

[Jockey79]

That's perfect! We can just introduce a new profession to ED... Insurance fraud.

ahh, but will FD bring out the "Audit Scanner";

Police: Halt while we run you through the sysytem

KWS: Clean
Cargo: Fine
Audit: Insurance payouts and cargo sales do not tally..... action, execute for fraud.

Oh and new one for the "pirates" in this, as they are not getting wanted status as it was fraud, perhaps an "IRS Scanner".

Police: Excuse me sir, you're flying an Asp but my scanner says you've not paid tax in 2 years. Care to explain before I blow it up?

 

[Khelder]

ahh, but will FD bring out the "Audit Scanner";

Police: Halt while we run you through the sysytem

KWS: Clean
Cargo: Fine
Audit: Insurance payouts and cargo sales do not tally..... action, execute for fraud.

Oh and new one for the "pirates" in this, as they are not getting wanted status as it was fraud, perhaps an "IRS Scanner".

Police: Excuse me sir, you're flying an Asp but my scanner says you've not paid tax in 2 years. Care to explain before I blow it up?

I'm sold.

I actually think our tax office would fit quite nicely into the messed up world of ED too. :/

 

[Jockey79]

People want to know why players leave open;

That's why open is teeming with anacondas and PVP degenerated to shockwave damage set ups, kill by station set ups (exploit) and ram2win.

( ^^ from another thread)

Folks don't mind crime, folks don't mind the galaxy being "dangerous" - but folks do mind regular, pointless killing for others amusement.
It's why I left EVE Online, and also why EVE has become a dirty word on these forums. A fair few of us don't want to be forced back in to EVE style play.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

If insurance paid out 70% of the cargo cost and if the pirate got 50% selling stolen goods to a black market then that's 20% to the good for the two players.

Pirates get 75% on stolen goods, there was an increase in patch 1.2.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Pirates get 75% on selling stolen goods, there was an increase in patch 1.2.

Thanks for that clarification.

This makes the equation even worse for the trader if the total payout was required to be cost neutral, i.e. 25% payout to the trader as the pirate gets 75%. It's almost not worth implementing for the trader in that case.

 

[Cody]

Folks don't mind crime, folks don't mind the galaxy being "dangerous" - but folks do mind regular, pointless killing for others amusement.

<nods sagely>

 

[Khelder]

Folks don't mind crime, folks don't mind the galaxy being "dangerous" - but folks do mind regular, pointless killing for others amusement.

Then why not aren't more folks interested in discussing the issues with Open and how they could possibly be improved instead of just instantly jumping to the DON'T TOUCH MY MODES! or WORKING AS INTENDED!? I find it almost as disappointing as the pointless killing.

 

[ianw]

Then why not aren't more folks interested in discussing the issues with Open and how they could possibly be improved instead of just instantly jumping to the DON'T TOUCH MY MODES! or WORKING AS INTENDED!? I find it almost as disappointing as the pointless killing.

I think many of us are.

But just as opponents of mode switching meet with frustration so do those of us who would like better crime consequences.

On the positive side Sandro also did say the other day they aren't finished with balancing and they do want to make high sec safer and anarchies more dangerous.

So we have hope!

 

[Jockey79]

Then why not aren't more folks interested in discussing the issues with Open and how they could possibly be improved instead of just instantly jumping to the DON'T TOUCH MY MODES! or WORKING AS INTENDED!? I find it almost as disappointing as the pointless killing.

Because the only solutions Open advocates bring are;

1) Nerf Solo / Group to "encourage" Open
2) Lock all modes (aka remove the ability to swap ever)
3) New server with new BGS for Open Only players
4) Remove Solo / Group and force Open Only

None of those solve the problem and have been talked to death for 3 years.

I said before, the problems in Open are nothing to do with the modes.
It is to do with other game systems, like Crime and Punishment (or lack of in the case of the latter).
But gankers / griefers deflect that issue to modes as they don't want it fixing. It would ruin their fun if they had consequences to face for those actions.