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

[Scudmungus]

The convoy mechanics would be great for this, theres a few going in permit systems however as per usual FD detected somebody might have fun with them so they made the T9's only carry 2-4 cargo, that way you had to take on 2 anacondas for a pittance

Ha! Dey missin a trick. T9s should be to pirate wot Painite be to miners an Slaves to traders - bold credits! As yuh say, addin som NPC body gaurds? Include local security? Now wi got a real challenge! Now wi got som FUN!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

There should be a way to take cargo by force without the trader being cooperative. I guess that's what hatch breaker limpets are for and from what I've read they don't work or are not effective enough.

They work quite well actually. They don't force dozens of tons to drop with a single limpet, which is what some pirates would want, but this is similar to the discussion about the 20 ton limit. Boils down to the old equation of how much you can rob from a target before it becomes unprofitable for them.

Ideally a pirate should only take as much as the trader can afford so he will continue to trade in your area of piracy. But of course, many people can't restrain themselves and ask for a lot more than that.

With limpets, you can do that, as long as your target doesn't run.

Of course, they only work well with NPCs... but there again, so do most things. Against a PC they can simply high wake out and be gone, or you destroy them and so get nothing. Actually, for piracy, NPCs can often be more fruitful, since with limpet use you can actually get some some cargo from them.

 

[Belzmort]

Yeah some want it to change to suit their agendas. You want it the same to suit your agenda...kind of the same if you reverse it huh?

Interesting that you ignore the part about the impact on the rest of community. You are asking for massive fundamental changes to the game, whereas I amongst many others are more than happy with the game as it is.

 

[Scudmungus]

Ideally a pirate should only take as much as the trader can afford so he will continue to trade in your area of piracy. But of course, many people can't restrain themselves and ask for a lot more than that.

Truth. An be reason why wi gotta move mechanic discussion away fram piratin player vs player an focus on piratin versus NPC. Attemtpin to improve reliability of piratin playuer versus player not gonna go down gud. Only way to be makin it reliable be wid takin choice away from oder players. Dis mi not wantin!

As yuh sey, de current tools work best on NPCs - an dere lotta room fah improvment on dis aspect of playchoice.

Mi tinkin wi betta focusin on piratin versus NPCS an makin dem a renewable, a near-infinite source of potential credits. Much like stations fah traders an asteroids for mining an de unknown fah explorers. Aal gud

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

They work quite well actually. They don't force dozens of tons to drop with a single limpet, which is what some pirates would want, but this is similar to the discussion about the 20 ton limit. Boils down to the old equation of how much you can rob from a target before it becomes unprofitable for them.

.

Then make it a % instead of 8-12 tons. That way 10% of a trader's cargo is 10% regardless of if they are flying a hauler or type 9.

Limpets are crap against npcs too. Any rank after novice loads up on point defense.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then make it a % instead of 8-12 tons. That way 10% of a trader's cargo is 10% regardless of if they are flying a hauler or type 9.

Limpets are crap against npcs too. Any rank after novice loads up on point defense.

Why would the haul that a limpet could extract change depending on the size of the targeted ship - the limpet has not changed after all?

 

[Cula-Ta]

I posted this elsewhere, but as it has some crossover with Open v's Solo/Group I thought I would give it a little extra airplay...

Background
I write this post as an explorer, not one of those hard core, do nothing else guys, but one that enjoys going off into the black for a 20K plus round trip every now and again.
But there comes a point on every trip when I feel the craving to do something different. To play the game my way and burn my own trail. Unfortunately it's a long way back for that little bit of something different, I would like to try my hand at every now and again whilst on a particularly long journey.
Proposal
Now I'm not the first (nor the last I'm sure) to advocate multiple player slots, but maybe my proposal is a little different.
I'm advocating the option for players to have up to 4 characters, but only one of which can be elected for play in open.
I'm also advocating the separation of solo/group play from open.
FD wouldn't agree to this because of cost you might state
Well character slots would cost money and this would help fund separate servers and the likely person needed to manage alternate story lines.
1 extra character slot might cost £20, two for £35 and 3 (the max) for £45 (I'm sure this would appeal to many people.
Other benefits
This would also remove the conflict caused by open/solo play having the same effect on the verse. Their now two different galactic instances.
More players would dip their toes into open, because losing their secondary character would not be as much of an issue.
Players would have greater variety and burn out less quickly. Especially the less hard core explorers who would love to reach the far side but can't manage it without a bit of something different every now and again (like me)...
This may encourage more players to buy expansions, because their still playing the game because it offers variety and choice, which of course equals more money down the line.
Just buy a second account
Well that is possible, I'm sure espionage would be easy with two accounts.
But how about all characters under the one account have the main account name in brackets? In my case my secondary character might be identified as Drayfus (Cula-ta). Cula-ta being my main account. Also buying secondary/tertiary character slots would be cheaper than a new account (perhaps making espionage accounts less appealing).

Anyway that's my proposal, feel free to blow it to pieces, at least I thought it was a good idea ​

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…

Mi tinkin wi betta focusin on piratin versus NPCS an makin dem a renewable, a near-infinite source of potential credits. Much like stations fah traders an asteroids for mining an de unknown fah explorers. Aal gud

I think it will take more than just making NPC piracy more profitable to make Open more interesting for more players.

Changing the player vs. player piracy mechanic can add more choice for all players if they go hand in hand with changes to NPC pirates and traders. A better player vs. player piracy mechanic could encourage pirates not to kill traders because they don't have to kill them to get the cargo and it would be easier and more profitable not to kill the traders. Pirate happy and trader happy. Everybody holding hands and singing "Kumbaya"…

Making NPC piracy more profitable won't change the way CMDRs play who want to pirate other players. Giving those CMDRs a profitable way to pirate other players that is more acceptable to the pirated player will probably make more players happy than just better profit for pirates.

Sure there will be CMDRs that just want to do the "drop all you have or I kill you" thing or CMDRs who just want to kill every CMDR they encounter, but for those players the consequences should be very, very harsh.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Proposal
Now I'm not the first (nor the last I'm sure) to advocate multiple player slots, but maybe my proposal is a little different.
I'm advocating the option for players to have up to 4 characters, but only one of which can be elected for play in open.
I'm also advocating the separation of solo/group play from open.

You're right - you are certainly neither the first nor the last to suggest that the modes be split and commanders locked to a mode.

Frontier, in the person of DBOBE in this case, would seem to have a different view - at E3 about a fortnight ago, DBOBE was interviewed by Arstechnica:

There are no changes planned to separate solo and online saves, and players will continue to inhabit the same shared galaxy whether they’re in solo or multiplayer—again, continuing with Braben’s contention that there’s no ‘right’ way to play.

 

[Jezzah]

Request:

Can we just lock this thread and the other one about guilds also. There's no dicussion anymore it's just people posting and then moderator Maynard comes in and reposts some blurb that Braben says over and over again ad nauseum.

Maybe edit the first post with Moderator Maynard posts. Close and lock any other ideas or discussions and link to these ancient threads.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Sure there will be CMDRs that just want to do the "drop all you have or I kill you" thing or CMDRs who just want to kill every CMDR they encounter, but for those players the consequences should be very, very harsh.

Exactly. You SHOULD be able to do what the heck you want to any player in the game - even pilots federation members. but you should have to live with the consequences - and these consequences should be hard, and not wiped in a few days or after self destructing in your sidewinder.

 

[Cula-Ta]

Thanks Robert.
I fully understand that. Not to say I agree with it, but that's beside the point

 

[Scudmungus]

Making NPC piracy more profitable won't change the way CMDRs play who want to pirate other players.

Dey can be wantin, aal gud. An dey need to recognize day piratin player vs player be a novelty of de system.

Dis not changing anytime soon. If dey lookin for reliable credit source, NPC only option. Only option dat be givin aal players choice an not imposin on de oder. Only option Frontier can build on, develop an grow.

If dey lookin fah reliable player vs player interaction? De group forum dat way -->

 

[Sim Maker]

Request:

Can we just lock this thread and the other one about guilds also. There's no dicussion anymore it's just people posting and then moderator Maynard comes in and reposts some blurb that Braben says over and over again ad nauseum.

Maybe edit the first post with Moderator Maynard posts. Close and lock any other ideas or discussions and link to these ancient threads.

"There are no changes planned......." lol....
.
Plans change, Robert......I am sure you were posting quotes about no "plans" to get rid of Offline mode either,......how did that work out?

PS. Sorry was meant to quote Roberts post..........

 

[Roland2]

Request:

Can we just lock this thread and the other one about guilds also. There's no dicussion anymore it's just people posting and then moderator Maynard comes in and reposts some blurb that Braben says over and over again ad nauseum.

Maybe edit the first post with Moderator Maynard posts. Close and lock any other ideas or discussions and link to these ancient threads.

The first post has been edited with the material Robert posts, but it's obvious people don't read it, or feel they are to important, and their idea will be listened to, and the game will be changed because, well, it was their idea.

As for closing this thread, my guess is if no one posted to it, or started a new thread on the same subject (no matter the excuse used (CG, PP,...) for say a month, it would be closed. Since this isn't very likely to happen, it will stay open, and continue the merry-go-round.

 

[Robert Maynard]

"There are no changes planned......." lol....
.
Plans change, Robert......I am sure you were posting quotes about no "plans" to get rid of Offline mode either,......how did that work out?

You are quite correct - offline mode was indeed cancelled - before the game launched. The game has launched on Steam and also on the Xbox Live Game Preview Program - with these features intact. Yes, plans change - but acts speak louder than words in this case, in my opinion, of course. Absence of proof is not proof of absence so the fact that there are no plans currently will always be countered with "ah - but there may be, at some point". We'll just have to see what happens, won't we....

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Why would the haul that a limpet could extract change depending on the size of the targeted ship - the limpet has not changed after all?

Because it's a video game, sometimes balance takes precedence, the space flight physics for example.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because it's a video game, sometimes balance takes precedence, the space flight physics for example.

Is that balance in favour of the avaricious pirate or the trader reluctant to lose cargo?

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Is that balance in favour of the avaricious pirate or the trader reluctant to lose cargo?

Anything that makes it easier to get cargo from a trader so pirate rely less on the "cargo or die" method is in the trader's favor I would think.

 

[ianw]

"There are no changes planned......." lol....
.
Plans change, Robert......I am sure you were posting quotes about no "plans" to get rid of Offline mode either,......how did that work out?

PS. Sorry was meant to quote Roberts post..........

Well there is clearly a huge difference between not implementing a planned thing and dramatically changing or removing something that is in, working and being used.