1.hm intresting if we wanted the blockade to work us the other space game we would play that game
2.we can agree on that
3.already open have that payout
4.here we start with the imaginary solo easy mode...
5.another nerf solo invalid point...
6.solo dont need encourage by anything ... the few griefers that r on open they do that job pretty well
7. and here you have ur valid point
1. I don’t understand. Are you saying blockades are used in another game? If this is an Eve comparison, it’s lost on me because I never played it. Blockades seemed like a plausible idea in improving the game. But if you disagree, you disagree.
2. Okay
3. We already get bonus payouts in Open? Just to be clear, I’m not talking about CG bonuses here. I’m talking about the payouts for trading goods, turning in vouchers and bonds, and turning in astronomical data, outside of CGs. Those payouts should be higher in Open than in Solo, I believe. Perhaps like 5% or 10% bonuses for playing in Open.
4. I didn’t say Solo couldn’t be challenging. But, when you add actual players in the mix, then risk is increased by the unpredictable nature of human players, which in many cases will make combat and other activities more difficult, less predictably secure. Greater risk should yield greater reward.
5. I don’t think this point is invalid. It has even been taken into consideration (as you can see in the OP), albeit in a slightly different form.
6. It sounds to me that Solo would need some type of encouragement if Frontier decided to implement any perks for Open. Some folks have claimed they would abandon the game if Open players get paid more than Solo players. No compromise. So Frontier would have to be willing to put some options on the table, offering Solo players something (not just interactive NPCs) because I believe many Solo players would be willing to make compromises especially if tweaks are made with the intention to improve the overall experience and make it fairer or more practical. Frontier would have to have some things to offer Solo so they don’t all get the impression Frontier is “killing Solo”.
7. Of course.
Hi jpaulwilson.
However, you could argue that NPC blockades in Solo would be more effective because they will apply to all players equally where as PvP blockades in Open are less effective because of instancing and router tweaks/issues. And once blockades become officially supported then NPCs should blockade the stations and it would be close to 100% effective. You bring it closer and closer to rendering CGs pointless and just turn them into a system-wide CZ. That isn't what CGs are meant to be.
Increasing Open rewards is effectively the same thing as decreasing Solo rewards. Either way Open gets more than Solo.
---
NPCs with more character benefits everyone and would be awesome. It's something that will come with time I'm sure as will NPC behavior in general (such as combat ability).
Smuggling and illegal trading in general needs a lot of love, agreed.
Hi SteveLaw
I believe blockades would present a new challenge to all modes, and allow for players influencing certain factions the opportunity to better enforce their systems stability and laws. I’m not saying that blockades should be 100% effective. As it stands, blockades are a joke. With NPCs enforcing blockades in all modes, then both Solo and Open players (and not just Open players) face potential consequences for smuggling, and smuggling profits could be bigger because of risk yielding more rewards.
It seems on these forums that lots of folks have a problem with Solo players smuggling into their systems with no recourse. I’m not trying to kill the CG here- I’m trying to make it more dynamic. Traders have options to trade in safer or more dangerous areas, anyhow. If a trader doesn’t want to accept the obviously higher risks, or just doesn’t want to be that kind of trader or smuggler, then they don’t have to smuggle into blockaded or War systems. And all trading CGs don’t have to have blockades. But it would be a nice choice for a faction’s supporters to have when their system(s) is being taken over via a trading/smuggling CG that threatens the balance of power in that system in an immediate way.
As for increasing open rewards = decreasing Solo rewards, effectively, I disagree. Solo players should be able to keep every credit they earn without penalty. Open players should get to keep every credit they earn, but with a bonus due to the inherently higher risks that come with Open. If you had employees, all earning $10/hr, and two of them put in more effort, or just work harder, you wouldn’t lower the other employees’ salaries to motivate them to put in more effort- you’d give a raise or bonus to the harder working employees to encourage and recognize their efforts, and it could motivate the others to work harder. So I don’t see bonuses for Open players as a penalty against Solo players, because they’re not losing anything (many were going to play Solo anyways by preference). But Open players do gain bonuses for their riskier and successful choices.
But hey! We agree on more interactive NPCs and more love for smugglers and illegal trading. That’s something
But I really, really do appreciate that you kept your side of the debate logical and respectful. + Rep for that!
Blockades are not supposed to be something players can do, it really has nothing to do with Open vs Solo. You may would like to have that Feature, but the Games does not want you to have it.
Its part of that whole Mafiosi style of play some players would like to do but FD does not want you to be able to do.
Frontier opposes blockades? Am I wrong, or haven’t there been GalNet articles warning of blockaded systems? Plus, haven’t several groups attempted blockades before? I’ve never seen Frontier object to blockades, so I don’t see why they’d not consider the blockade system I proposed. And considering that the point of the blockade is to give Open players a way to counter the actions of their unchecked opposition in Solo, I’d say this blockade idea has everything to do with Solo vs Open.
Originally Posted by jpaulwilson1982
1. Let players influence the official formation of a blockade, making it where NPCs join the official blockade to level the playing field across all modes. This won’t make things perfectly even, as actual players and NPCs have a wide gap in difficulty (for the most part). But the Solo players will have to deal with the blockade ships, as opposed to being able to deliver CG items with far less risk in Solo. Perhaps such official blockades could only be brought about during a time of war, lockdown, or an unusually high number of illegal transactions (smuggling), via Community Goals. If X number of commanders sign up for the CG Blockade, then the blockade is up in all modes (or maybe only in Solo since in Open there’s a blockade of human players?).
---
There have been basically 3 types of community goals so far. There are the combat bonds types, which are combat oriented and focus on getting kills in CZs or other areas and achieving that sort of thing. That caters to the people interested in combat who have combat oriented ships. There are exploration types, where exploration data is handed in at a certain station for a reward. That caters to the people interested in exploring who have ships designed for long range and scanning distant planets and stars. Then there are the trade types, where a station has to try and accumulate goods via trade. This caters to those who like trading who have ships configured for trading purposes.
What you want to do with blockades is to take trade-oriented CGs and convert them into quasi-combat/trade oriented CGs. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I am saying this idea might rub a few people the wrong way and it really needs to be carefully considered. Think about this. Let's say there is a combat bond CG in a system, and whichever side wins gets the CG bonus and rewards. But within the conflict zones there are capital ships; and the number and strength of those ships is determined by the amount of gallium and berylium being delivered to each sides particular station. Thus people begin dragging cargo in Type 9s to those stations en masse, having a heavy influence on what is going on in the combat zones and how successful each side could possibly be in there, how well would that go down with those in the combat zones?
---
Originally Posted by jpaulwilson1982
3. I favor Open players getting bonuses for trading, combat, bounty hunting, and exploration, and Solo players getting only the normal rate for their actions (simply because more risk should yield more reward).
---
Total immersion killer. What effects the Elite universe should be things that take place within the Elite universe. The mode I pick to enter it shouldn't factor in the price I pay for gold or the amount that I get for a bounty. It makes absolutely no logical sense in terms of gameplay.
---
Originally Posted by jpaulwilson1982
5. With the idea of Open and Solo carrying different weight with players contributing to Community Goals, I think this could be effective in combination with higher payouts for Open players. Perhaps instead of Solo players’ CG contributions carrying less weight, perhaps Open players’ contribution carry more weight (in other words, Solo players still able to contribute 100T and it still counts as 100T, but Open players get an extra 10% toward their CG contributions). The key here is you want to encourage people to play Open (rewarding for higher risk) but you don’t want to discourage Solo (punish for playing alone/lowering base payouts).
---
This idea is often mooted but it never gets any less terrible with each telling. Imagine the Elite universe as a democracy, with everyone having equal but minimal influence. You basically want to remove the vote (or at least lessen the vote) of a lot of people. They'll be forced to share a universe, with the politics and faction activites of that universe being dictated to them by other players. "Open players are better than you" is the inescapable message this sends.
This won't encourage me into Open, it'll encourage me to uninstall the game and wait for Star Citizen. Full stop.
I don’t think every trading CG should face the possibility of a blockade. Not all trading CGs are acts of war or necessarily always precursors to war. But it really upsets people in Open who put in hard work to secure their system or stations during war or immediately before a war to not have any way to slow down or stop their opposition in Solo. I think a blockade CG would be a good, effective counter CG that could also provide opportunity for smugglers to make more profits for smuggling into blockaded and at-war systems.
Concerning higher payouts in Open, I think we’re simply going to disagree about this. To me it makes sense that higher risk should yield higher rewards. This theme exists within many video games, old and new. I don’t think it would be an immersion killer, either. People who play in Solo still would get paid what they got paid before. People in Open would be the ones largely noticing this change. And besides, if the existence of Solo and Open Modes within the same online game doesn’t kill immersion, I doubt higher payouts in Open would be that much of a stretch.
Concerning CGs having different values in Solo and Open- I’m not a total stickler on this idea. More money for more risk is one thing, but more influence for more risk might be pushing it. I think that if blockades across all modes were implemented, then the risk of Open and Solo smuggling would be closer to being equal, at least in blockaded systems. I need to think more on this one. As the situation stands though (no blockades), Solo smuggling is less risky due to the absence of human players. I dunno. Need to think this one over some more.
But on your point about being forced to share a universe- isn’t that already how it is? No single individual has a lot of control of the factions and politics, so we all are already subjected to the actions of all players across all modes, who attempt to shape the factions and politics of the galaxy in a way they want it. So, “. . . the politics and faction activites of that universe being dictated to them by other players . . .” already exists. This will especially be true when 1.3 drops. You think I want to lose Sol to the Empire? Of course not. But ultimately it’s not up to me because I share the Elite universe with all other players, whether they be in Solo or Open, Federation or Empire.
Concerning leaving and uninstalling the game…. There’s nothing I can say to that. It’s a debate killer.
While you've obviously put some time and thought into this, I'm not sure your suggestions are going to move things in the right direction. Four of your suggestions are going in the direction of modes being essentially different games, making it more rewarding for one mode, or harder for another. I don't believe this will unite the player base.
I've said often that personally I don't care if players in open were to get 'more rewards' for doing the same thing that someone in a different mode gets. Personally, I make enough credits to be able to play the game in the way I want, even though I cannot afford all the ships, or even to A rate everything I have. I know lots of CMDRs have way more than me. I don't care, because I'm not playing against them. However, the more this argument gets brought up, the less I like it, and it's never going to be as simple to implement as proponents for it make out. So, someone in Open should get more for destroying the same NPC as someone in Solo? Just because they are in Open? By all means, if there's a way to make CMDR bounties higher, then go for it, but otherwise leave well alone. Same for trading. Open player gets x% more because they are in Open. What if they happen not to see another CMDR, let alone get interdicted by one? Should the bonus only apply if you survive a PvP encounter? You might attract some people into Open for the extra 'rewards', but I reckon they will be people who know how to exploit the networking system, rather than players who would otherwise be too apprehensive about playing Open. The risk vs reward argument is a bit silly really. It's a computer game, and with persistence pretty much anybody who starts to play it can get enough rewards to do what they want in game, and if some do better than others, it's really not a big deal since it's not a competition.
I've posted regarding CG's before, as that is one area where FD seem to be promoting competition, which is odd, since a community goal is not by definition competitive. So, if they want to make them Open only, and think there is enough of a demand for that, then they can do so.
I know you aren't that keen on number four anyway, but suffice it to say, there's no need to make NPC's harder in one mode than another, (and give the player in Open mode a bigger reward for destroying a less competent NPC?), and then give players the choice of how hard the game should be for them. Apparently Open is already harder, so anyone wanting either the challenge and / or the interaction will probably already be there. I accept that most NPC's are fairly easy to dispatch, especially once you have a bit of combat experience and a pair of class three lasers. Big deal, they are there for our entertainment, not to destroy us every time we leave a station. Not everyone playing this game is in it for nail biting edge of the seat competitive combat, and those that are have the means at their disposal, if they wanted to, to set up PvP groups for just that reason, but they never seem to do it.
I'm all for FD making Open fairer, although it won't impact me at all. I just don't want to play computer games with other people, and I'd guess there are others just like me, so whether it will encourage lots of others currently hiding in Solo to come into Open is by no means certain. Are there really lots of people who would just love to be in Open but don't want to get destroyed in a cheap way? There may be a few, but more likely, there are lots of people who do not wish to engage in PvP action, although they'd be happy to have human interaction, and since Open mode will (presumably) always allow non consensual PvP, those players will find other ways to play the game, such as in a PvE group.
Your points about better rewards for smuggling and better interaction with NPC's are good ones, and hopefully they will come over time. There's lots of ways that FD will improve this game, including making Open a better environment for people who want to play there. However, rewarding one mode is the same as penalizing another mode, and I don't think that will improve the game.
Points taken and well made. + Rep for a respectful, intelligent, and thoughtful response.
But, yeah, the ideas I presented I don’t think will completely balance the modes and make them as fair as possible. I do think some of those ideas would lead to a fairer, more balanced system, but they’re not facts- they’re just ideas supported with some evidence and a lot of personal experience and observations of Elite Dangerous. The Frontier forums is one reason I am convinced there are quite a few folks who bought the game to play online, but quit or go to Solo because of their bad Open experiences. I see such posts every day in the Frontier Forums, so I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe there are people who would play Open if it were improved.
Concerning your comments on Open getting higher payouts and such- you make really good points. With bonuses, I think fairest way to do it is to give the bonus upon turning in vouchers, bounties, bonds, and selling commodities. I believe a bonus for playing in Open is fair no matter the amount of players an Open player encounters. The bonus is because of the general idea that playing in Open yields a risk in itself. When I go to play Open I don’t know if I’m going to see no commanders or several dozen throughout my adventures. But when I click on Open, I have to accept the fact that it is riskier because that potential to deal with human players is real. I might sail on through as if it was Solo, or I could end up getting attacked by Elite pirates.
On the other hand, you made another good point about commanders being worth more than NPCs in combat and bounty hunting. We would have to find a way to minimize exploits, though. Perhaps when a player kills another wanted/enemy player, they won’t be placed in the same instance again for some time. Or Frontier could look for players who kill only each other, back and forth, just to get endless bounties with bonuses. It wouldn’t be such a difficult thing- they already keep up with what we do to find combat loggers. Just set it up to where it alerts the appropriate folks at Frontier that two players are exploiting the system by killing each other again and again. And Frontier decides what actions to take.
Thanks for the critique, though. Great ideas are rarely great right out the gate- great ideas can only be forged through criticism and debate. Who knows, maybe we’ll end up coming up with a really great idea through these debates
Anyways, I’m pooped out after responding to all these comments. Thanks to those of you who criticized in a respectful, intelligent, professional manner. I really appreciate having an actual debate.
And now, I have a fresh, new episode of Game of Thrones to watch.
All bow before Lord Tyrion!
