Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

Janichsan · Jul 21, 2015

gMcizzLe said:
If there are more players, then it makes sense for there to be more pirates, because there is more possibility of goods to steal. What doesn't make sense is lots of pirates when there is only one player in the area, which happens all the time when entering your own RES.

The (NPC) pirates aren't there for the player. They are there for the NPC miners. The player is only one ship among many to them.

Mouse · Jul 21, 2015

Roybe said:
Not talking about PP just the BGS. It is part of the game...and it is something that people need to get their heads wrapped around...and accept. The game is designed with this in mind. Unfortunately, regardless of peoples personal desires to the contrary, the game cannot work otherwise.

If you do not play the game and work with the BGS...your understanding of 'insignificant' is skewed. One player, innocently playing in Private, can mean directed play for hours and days for some. Intent not withstanding. A player doing missions in a system, in unknowing opposition to someone else, is a problem. Dismissing this because it is 'insignifcant' is telling someone that their time in game is the same.

I still disagree.. People doing things in my town don't force me to interact with them.

gMcizzLe · Jul 21, 2015

Mouse said:
Your not understanding. Pirates are not going to take a risk assaulting a large mass of armed ships. The risk does not outway the reward

And it makes sense for a bunch of pirates to fight over one ship? If there's more ships, the pirate generator should send more pirates to overwhelm them. So if 5 players enter the RES, send 20 pirates, not 1 (which is how it actually works now).

Mohrgan · Jul 21, 2015

gMcizzLe said:
And it makes sense for a bunch of pirates to fight over one ship? If there's more ships, the pirate generator should send more pirates to overwhelm them. So if 5 players enter the RES, send 20 pirates, not 1 (which is how it actually works now).

This has no relation to the Modes. This whole conversation is about the feeling of entitlement that has surrounded RES's. Changing anything about the modes won't help make a RES more like an ATM.

Asp Explorer · Jul 21, 2015

I found this very interesting - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33613781

Mouse · Jul 21, 2015

gMcizzLe said:
And it makes sense for a bunch of pirates to fight over one ship? If there's more ships, the pirate generator should send more pirates to overwhelm them. So if 5 players enter the RES, send 20 pirates, not 1 (which is how it actually works now).

Which makes more sense. Multiple pirates getting a read that something is in the RES and going in finding others got the same reading, or a pirate gets the reading of many ships and goes in

faytar · Jul 21, 2015

Jordan Cobalt said:
We're both just arguing two sides of the coin. You say nerf the risk, I say buff the reward. Either way it has the same effect.

I don't have any problems with the risk getting lowered, as long as it follows 2 simple rules:

1) It effects all professions equally. I know any talk of reducing insurance for pvp will come with the caveat, unless you're a pirate or PK'er.

2) it's not 100% effective. There has to be some risk to any fights in the main game. Otherwise the whole thing becomes like cqc.

Imo, 50% is about right for insurance and you get to keep 50% of your non cargo related losses. 30% of your (non stolen) cargo will be covered by the standard pilot insurance, with an option to cover 30% more with cargo insurance. You pay 5% of the galactic avg on the avg price of 30% of your cargo.

in addition to the comment on instancing and play time , there is the fact that same system if your there in open and they are there in solo and you are the only ones working in the system then it is balanced as well cause you can do missions there too and they cant interfere with you, and if more people are working on the system then some one on your side could be in solo or group as well , lets just be honest its not about "oh its not fair they have less risk" its about you want to kill these people for playing differently then you or doing things counter to your goals, its just a whining , entitled fit being thrown because they are not interested in pvp

Jordan Cobalt · Jul 21, 2015

faytar said:
in addition to the comment on instancing and play time , there is the fact that same system if your there in open and they are there in solo and you are the only ones working in the system then it is balanced as well cause you can do missions there too and they cant interfere with you, and if more people are working on the system then some one on your side could be in solo or group as well , lets just be honest its not about "oh its not fair they have less risk" its about you want to kill these people for playing differently then you or doing things counter to your goals, its just a whining , entitled fit being thrown because they are not interested in pvp

Was this directed at the right person? It's barely related to what I said, the end is also pretty insulting.

Jordan Cobalt · Jul 21, 2015

Mohrgan said:
Yours, and Dark's viewpoint come from the PvP is worth saving camp. From the PvP is just a byproduct point of view, everything is settled by letting people choose what involvement they care for. The interchangeable modes do an admirable job in answer.

Well you're welcome to your opinion, I'll never stop trying to make pvp better. I believe pvp is/should be more than a byproduct of the game.

Mohrgan · Jul 21, 2015

Jordan Cobalt said:
Well you're welcome to your opinion, I'll never stop trying to make pvp better. I believe pvp is/should be more than a byproduct of the game.

And, I wish you well. So long as you don't do it by taking choice away, or bribing players to be the victim. If FD can find a way to get players more interested in PvP without coercion, I'm in.

I take frequent dips into the PvP pool, mostly as a victim, but I don't think it should be specifically, or institutionally propped up. Organically open and PvP should support itself, on it's own.

Marak · Jul 21, 2015

Asp Explorer said:
I found this very interesting - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33613781

Nice spot Asp -

90% of the women gamers I know can kick my ass in any game - An' if I give them crap for it they will kick my ass in real life!

They are a lot younger than me though so, I think it has got something to do with them things called reflexes (I seem to remember I had one or two of them things in the past...)

Faded Glory · Jul 21, 2015

Jordan Cobalt said:
Well you're welcome to your opinion, I'll never stop trying to make pvp better. I believe pvp is/should be more than a byproduct of the game.

Mohrgan said:
And, I wish you well. So long as you don't do it by taking choice away, or bribing players to be the victim. If FD can find a way to get players more interested in PvP without coercion, I'm in.

I take frequent dips into the PvP pool, mostly as a victim, but I don't think it should be specifically, or institutionally propped up. Organically open and PvP should support itself, on it's own.

There's nothing wrong with trying to make PvP (a mode you like) better, although most of the evidence supports the fact that it is not a core feature of the game (I think the word byproduct is more dismissive than necessary).

As Mohrgan says, so long as it's not done by removing choice, then have at it. In my opinion, you can bribe people all you like, but FD cannot, and I suspect that is what Mohrgan means anyway. The fact is, in a game as unequal as ED (in terms of just ship combat capabilities), you'll always struggle to get a suitable amount of 'prey', after all, how much fun can it be to get pirated once a session? I'd have thought even a great pirate / trader role play will lose it's shine for the trader after a while.

cmdr derp · Jul 21, 2015

its a tough one for fdev to get right, most companies choose one or the other for these very reasons

Jockey79 · Jul 22, 2015

Asp Explorer said:
I found this very interesting - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33613781

I can pick that apart in so many ways it's laughable.
Plus, I fail to see how it is relevant to this thread???

I've not seen any sexist remarks in the thread or in game.

Though I have noticed the lack of a pink paint for ships, yet there is blue. My wife would play if there was pink, she has a pink ship in Star Trek Online and she has a pink battle frame in Firefall.
But apart from that, I cannot think of anything else.

Asp Explorer · Jul 22, 2015

Jockey79 said:
I can pick that apart in so many ways it's laughable.
Plus, I fail to see how it is relevant to this thread???.

Oh I simply said I found it interesting, not that I agree or disagree with it.

Faded Glory · Jul 22, 2015

Jockey79 said:
[snip]

I've not seen any sexist remarks in the thread or in game.

I don't know... The image of a FuzzySpider dressed in a French Maid's outfit, while not necessarily sexist, certainly has the potential give me David Lynch style nightmares!

Julissa Silver · Jul 22, 2015

Asp Explorer said:
Oh I simply said I found it interesting, not that I agree or disagree with it.

Oh, you sneaky thing you. I approve, take three cookies out of petty cash!

Cody · Jul 22, 2015

<pokes head out of cupboard> Did someone mention cookies?

Julissa Silver · Jul 22, 2015

Cody said:
<pokes head out of cupboard> Did someone mention cookies?

Oh yes, just go and ask the nice, if somewhat fuzzy, french maid for one.

Mouse · Jul 22, 2015

Jockey79 said:
I can pick that apart in so many ways it's laughable.
Plus, I fail to see how it is relevant to this thread???

I've not seen any sexist remarks in the thread or in game.

Though I have noticed the lack of a pink paint for ships, yet there is blue. My wife would play if there was pink, she has a pink ship in Star Trek Online and she has a pink battle frame in Firefall.
But apart from that, I cannot think of anything else.

My sister had a blast with Mechwarrior after I made her a hot pink Mad Cat.