If that is done by actually measuring the skill or effectiveness of the player in some way — so a player that is easier to beat than a NPC is actually worth less than a NPC — and the same adjustment is applied to different difficulty NPCs, I'm all for it. Equal rules for the different modes, and all that. Though, to be complete, this would also require spawned NPCs to recognize players in distress from their faction and rush to the rescue, otherwise it would only make the situation where players just choose the already more populous side more enticing and, thus, more common.
If it's just a blanket "players are worth more than NPCs", then no.
One potential idea used in other games is to keep a score based on how many kills a player had since he was last destroyed or changed ships, and scale up the reward for killing him in a combat zone according to that. If combined with a system to tell players when someone with a high reward joins the opposing side it could make life very interesting indeed for the best pilots. For NPCs it could be measured across all spawned NPCs of the same difficulty rather than doing it per NPC.
I do not think emotional, and poorly considered reactions should be a reason for FD to have any tools removed. But instead, you feel that this is something that hurts you some how. What are you measuring it against?
I have not said there should be any nerfs or buffs, but I fail to understand why the very concept instills such fear and anger in some.
A nerf that affected some, but not all, of the modes would be something directly attacking the idea that all players are equally important in the game, the very core of the "play your way" mantra, pushing a certain group above the others.
And, as such, for those that aren't in the group that was chosen as the "true players", it stops making sense to play. Why should I give any money, or any of my play time, to a game that clearly doesn't want me as a player or consumer? I don't play a game to become content to anti-social players that can only get their kicks from ruining the game for someone else, or to play second fiddle for those the devs deem "more worthy".
In principle there should be risk tiering, something along those lines
Solo safe = lowest right and lowest profits, takes the longest to progress via trading (trading nerfed compared to standard solo at the moment)
Solo risky = current level of profits, anarchy systems in solo mode, real risk from NPC's
Open safe = higher level of profits, safe routes in the open, in stable systems with NPC escorts/or some other mechanic of protection, pays better than current setup
Open risky = highest levels of profits/highest risk multipliers, anarchy trading in the open, highest chance of profits, but with highest risk, ie you are on your own.
Most of the traders would drift towards highest profits, while "safer" and slower type of game would still be available to those who do not mind the slow grind.
Two things:
- With the peer to peer architecture, this would make it really worthwhile to learn how to manipulate one's connection to be alone while nominally playing in open. It's easy to do and you can even find automated scripts if you know where to look at.
- Most humans are actually risk-adverse. If you take a look at psychological research, a risky proposition needs to have roughly twice the average payoff (after compensating for potential loses) to get about the same number of people choosing it as will choose the safer option; Ultima Online, for example, had all revenue from farming in the PvP zones doubled and still almost no one ventured there. So, unless the rewards for the risky choices are far higher than for the safe ones — and by far higher, I mean that twice the reward isn't even close to being enough — I would expect most players to still be choosing the safer option.
Solo and private groups are good and should absolutely exist. I find it ironic that even though allowing mode switching really compromises open play (and in game mechanics, CGs, bounty hunting etc) people present the argument that it's okay and not liking that is selfish.
I applauded DC Universe Online when they allowed players to jump between the PvP and PvE servers as often as they wanted, with no costs or charges. I see WoW allowing players to temporarily switch servers and thus play in a server with a different rule set as one of that game's best changes, even if it's mostly an unintended side-effect from cross-realm zones. I see any attempt by a group of players to blockade a system, to exclude others from part of the game's content, as detrimental to the game, something that drastically lessens how much enjoyment a game can provide.
In short, I see mode switching as perhaps the best feature ED has. And I see ED without mode switching as a far worse game, perhaps not even worth playing. You will never convince me that mode switching is bad because, for me, it's not; you will never convince me that locking players into specific modes, and thus preventing players with different preferences to play together when they want, is a good thing, because I always saw the segregation caused by different modes, factions, and servers, as the biggest flaw ever introduced in the MMO model.
Well there's an obvious solution that other games have used to great success. Shame it's not being considered.
If you are talking about segregated servers, those are often seen nowadays as retrograde, an artifact of older times when server technology wasn't nearly as advanced as today. Many MMOs nowadays have abolished the idea of separate servers, or, when they still keep those — like WoW does — often allow players to still play together by temporarily moving characters across servers.
