And kill targets quicker more than making up for the reduced payment in more kills over the same amount of time.
- Status
And kill targets quicker more than making up for the reduced payment in more kills over the same amount of time.
PvP was always intended to be part of WoW; the devs were crystal clear about that. PvE servers were only added because they saw a chance to increase the reach of the game, attract what they thought was a minority of players that couldn't stand PvP (boy, were they wrong).
What PvP was never meant to do was to disrupt PvE enough that players ragequit over it. Which is why Blizzard intentionally killed the Southshore ever-going open brawl, it was ruining the game to everyone that wanted to play the game and questlines as intended.
Another thing to keep in mind is that death in WoW already had low penalties (a corpse run that could take 5 minutes if you were particularly unlucky, up to some 50 minutes farming gold for repairs if you were broke), and Blizzard further reduced the penalty if the death happened in PvP (no durability loss for PvP deaths). It's why I could stand it; if I was attacked, I would just /sit, let the other player kill my character without even fighting back, rez, and keep playing as if nothing had happened. This prevented PvP from ruining the game for me in WoW, but something similar can't really be done in ED, which does mean unwanted PvP in ED would completely ruin the game for me.
The nature of the beast. PvP is really popular — as long as getting into a fight is under the complete control of the player. PvP where the player can't choose and pick their fights, not so much. It's why LoL has more players logging daily than WoW has subscribers.
BTW, about players going into group or solo after one or two bad fights: I would peg this to players discovering that they don't actually enjoy the kind of PvP found in open. ED actually has it better than older games; in pre-Trammel UO, and in EVE even now, those players typically leave the game completely instead. Players often bit more than they can chew, commit to things just to find they can't get enjoyment from them, and signing up for open PvP is often one such thing. I did the same mistake a decade ago when I created my first WoW character on a PvP realm, one of the worst gaming mistakes of my life.
P.S. look a bit more at korean MMOs. Grindheavy, but the PvP is always present and works pretty fine. Sure, the mentality is different and if you beat someone there he will do anything to become better - thats how korean player took over so many competitive games and pushed any other region out of the top. I love the mentality and would like to see it often here. Love and live to fight ingame
It's a different culture. Western MMOs tend to do badly there, and Korean MMOs tend to do badly here. And I actually think it's a good thing, Korean players are much more forgiving about pay-to-win than their western counterparts, and I would hate to see that trend getting more traction here than it already has.
Huh, no. Real life doesn't work like that at all. Activities don't get a larger payoff just because they have more risk.
What happens is kinda the opposite; people flock to those activities that have the lowest risk for the same payoff. After a while most people forget the higher risk activities even existed as a way to earn money, or relegate them to jokes about how one's life isn't truly hard. And, to boot, technological advances are reducing the risk all the time, to the point nowadays I can do in perfect safety things my grandparents would have found extremely risky.
As for it being how it works in most games, also not quite true. The activities that get the largest payoff are the ones devs want to promote. It's why, in many — perhaps most — games, the highest payoff lies in the average difficulty tasks, and anything harder is done mostly for bragging rights; the devs tend to be aware that, if they push players towards content with a larger difficulty level than they find comfortable, this will instead turn many of those players out of the game entirely. There's also the issue with the positive feedback loop of higher rewards making the game easier and defeating the whole purpose of the higher difficulty; in the recent Batman games, for example, for players above a certain (and not actually high) skill threshold, hard is actually the easiest mode because it gives more points and allows players to earn upgrades earlier, and this is one issue the devs should really avoid as presenting the easier version of the game to the players that want the higher challenge makes everyone unhappy.
You are assuming most people like gambling with what they own. Not exactly an universal truth, the average human is very risk-adverse, to the point much of the illogical behavior seen in the stock exchange can be explained by that.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually, whenever there is a need for boring grind in order to get to the fun part the game is very broken (or else the player that finds the grind boring is not truly the intended audience of the game). A working game needs even its grind to be fun and engaging, and if the devs can't provide that, they would be better off removing the grind altogether.
Actually, many people do have a problem with that, even if the pirate roleplays perfectly and is otherwise very considerate. It's non-consensual PvP, after all, and many people have a big issue with that regardless of its guise or end result.
But it is. Any advantage to one mode is also a penalty to the other ones.
Besides, a flat bonus is a clunky, inelegant way of tackling the issue, one that can be easily circumvented (firewalls, double NAT, etc) and is likely to create more issues than it solves. I'm all for solving the imbalance between the modes, making players in open and solo have the same average progression speed, but only if this is done by making the underlying game rules smarter and applying those rules equally across all modes.
Kinda why my first rule when choosing a MMO is that, if the game played solo wouldn't be fun for me, then I won't get into it regardless of what the devs promise. Devs can try to influence how the community play, but they can't dictate it, and from personal experience most devs are very bad at both predicting and influencing how the community will play. Purchasing a game because you expect the player base to behave in a specific way is, sincerely, foolhardy.
Wings and the trade bonus are in group mode as well, so they are not exclusive to open. And they technically are present in solo too, it's just that players in solo are unable to find anyone else to assemble a wing with. The competitions are just marketing stunts, no true influence in the game. I mean, selecting five people, out of half a million, to receive brand new graphic boards? Talk about long odds here.
Also, how the game described multiplayer, since the Kickstart, fully gives the impression that the modes would be equal. No hard promise was given, but at the same time no hint was given that rewards could change according to whether you accepted playing with random players or not. In fact, the words "at will" were used to describe how often players would be able to change between groups, including solo and open (which was described as just another group, no different than the others apart from the fact everyone is automatically a member of it).
The issue with bringing racism to the discussion is that it could be seen as equaling one of the camps to those that fight racism, and thus the opposite camp as racists. Even if unintentional, it's bad form and can derail the discussion.
Besides, as pointed by others already, there's not even a consensus about whether or not freely switching between modes, or the modes themselves, are issues or not.
I could be speaking for myself when saying this. As this thread is too massive to even look through it at this point.
The biggest concern when I see this thread is that people aren't talking about the root of the issue anymore. I think the biggest concern should be that players can go from Open to Solo or Solo to Open at all. Having the character freely transfer between a "risk free" environment into a "risk" environment. This is just bad design and totally open to abuse.
Players need to have a separate Solo Career and Open Career. There is no great way to implement this as the problem has persisted for so long - the only method I see working is having a copy made of everyone's profile and then split. Essentially letting the player base decide freely what gameplay suites their need. More choice is a good thing and should be embraced.
From what I see Solo people get the better deal in this as it doesn't effect them at all. Let solo players play by themselves if they want. If you want to play with friends - come endure the hardships of risk together.
The biggest concern when I see this thread is that people aren't talking about the root of the issue anymore. I think the biggest concern should be that players can go from Open to Solo or Solo to Open at all. Having the character freely transfer between a "risk free" environment into a "risk" environment. This is just bad design and totally open to abuse.
Players need to have a separate Solo Career and Open Career. There is no great way to implement this as the problem has persisted for so long - the only method I see working is having a copy made of everyone's profile and then split. Essentially letting the player base decide freely what gameplay suites their need. More choice is a good thing and should be embraced.
From what I see Solo people get the better deal in this as it doesn't effect them at all. Let solo players play by themselves if they want. If you want to play with friends - come endure the hardships of risk together.
That isn't an issue because Elite isn't a competitive game. Outright cheating is, of course, frowned upon. But if someone choses to trade in open they aren't going to "lose" to someone who trades in solo because the solo player has more runs.
So someone might make more money than you, is that a problem? If so explain why.
This point was done away with, that is why few bother trying this line anymore.
Here is why;
From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*
From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300
All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)
Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M
Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (With Twitch Video)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/
Direct Twitch Link; (Note DB use "Occasonial" and "unusual" regarding players interacting)
http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=69m00s
Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.
(I said I'd have to post it again - so called it ! )
Whoa. If it's not competitive what's wrong with "dodging risk"?
What about traders who spend their time in corporate safe systems rather than heading into anarchies? Should they be banned from buying a Vulture and flying into anarchy space because they've been "dodging risk"?
Again I am only talking risk vs reward. If a player finds a spot with no others around - good for them. The risk is still there and that is the point.
This is a lot of the problem.
Some people are just ultra competitive and seem to want to apply rules and standards that you would expect in a refereed game with strict rules between two players to a chaotic online scenario where no-one has any idea who they are playing against at any given time, they can stop and start playing as they see fit, use a range of different equipment with a huge variation in broadband access and quality, where there are no rules as to how many players are on each "side" or even if there are "sides" and lastly has a completely vague and largely undefined "ruleset".
It makes no sense.
That is why I'm fighting to remove the cr disparity from open.
Agreed a flat boost is clucky and unintuitive but, it's also a lot easier than a massive AI patch or re-balancing the profession income vs solo and group's.
I also didn't include, how combat logging and other hacks/cheats would have an impact on my change. The cheats aren't and shouldnt be included in any consideration for balancing the game.
So am I, and if you can think of any that can close the income disparity, I'm all ears.
The balance of a game always changes after release, based on how fair it is, and how it effects the meta of the game. Shield cells for example, were changed when they were found to be too strong and overused. A game changes when/If soemthing is found to be unbalanced or gives an unfair advantage.
Last edited:
Perhaps they might make some adjustments and I think some compromise wouldn't be bad imho, but how many companies will make a huge change on infrastructure or how a game is played after release? Everyone has the ability to adjust player threat and to play for a short time without worrying about what others will do.
Maybe more will head into open in 1.3 and later patches when consequences start to match actions?
Last edited:
Open isn't always harder, people really like to ignore that. There are circumstances where it even can be easier then Solo, diffculty in Elite can vary a lot. Giving a Bonus to a mode would be just that, giving someone a Bonus for choosing a mode and not for facing more difficult.
you can perfectly trade around and hunting some NPC Bountys and never facing another player, just like in Solo. you can also be attacked by a player while you are in your Annaconde and hes in a Side and a Guy in Solo in his Sidewinder gets attacked by an NPC wing of 8 Vultures.
Why on earth should then the guy in open get a Bonus for "having it more difficult"? There are so many factors when it comes to difficulty, how can people not see that? If we want to achieve 100% fairness we would need to make all CMDRs equal 100%, meaning stupid stuff like the Guy in the Annaconde is not allowed to have any advantage over the new player in a Sidewinder and so on.
you can perfectly trade around and hunting some NPC Bountys and never facing another player, just like in Solo. you can also be attacked by a player while you are in your Annaconde and hes in a Side and a Guy in Solo in his Sidewinder gets attacked by an NPC wing of 8 Vultures.
Why on earth should then the guy in open get a Bonus for "having it more difficult"? There are so many factors when it comes to difficulty, how can people not see that? If we want to achieve 100% fairness we would need to make all CMDRs equal 100%, meaning stupid stuff like the Guy in the Annaconde is not allowed to have any advantage over the new player in a Sidewinder and so on.
Again, with the misrepresentation.
Nothing stopping you moving away from core systems and earning in RES at the same rates Solo does.
At the moment, all cr values are the same across the board, a 10k bounty in Solo is a 10k bounty in Open.
That is balanced, by definition. The only thing that changes is the circumstances you earn under - and that is under YOUR control, no one elses.
re-balancing = un-balancing
The only thing that stops you earning the same in Open as people do in other modes is YOURSELF.
Move away from busy areas. Otherwise accept, YOU chose to play alongside others - that choice includes any and all consequences
No, cheaters should not - and they are not limited to Open mode either.
If someone combat logs in Open, you can bet they do it in Solo/ Groups as well.
Move away from the people holding you back maybe??
400 Billion stars with 2 other modes to visit them - no reason WHATSOEVER to be held back by another player
Fair, hmm. lets see....
I have Solo - so do you.
I have Groups - so do you.
I have Open - well look at that, so do you.
You know what the antisocial Open players (aka griefers) say to people who moan about how Open works?
They tell them "If you don't like it, go to Mobius"
Last edited:
I am curious as to whether there is any hard empirical data on any disparity. I suspect there are lots of anecdotal evidence, along the lines "Well of course X Mode is easier/harder than Y Mode....yada, yada yada", but I suspect the only people that actually know if any disparity exists are the Devs and I bet they are keeping that data to themselves. I am all for all modes being equal, I wouldn't even bat an eyelid if Open traders were given financial incentives to continue to play in Open, it still wouldn't persuade me to come out of Solo/Group modes.
I think it might been lost in 628 pages
but still, it's a lot easier in solo and players that have good internet connection still go play solo to do rare goods routes etc.
My point is, to make this game more as a MMO-ish devs should encourage players to play in Open Play. Small profit percentage wouldn't hurt
Besides, solo players would stay in their "solo universe" and wouldn't be affected by other players that might got slightly bigger profits while playing in open play.
What's the point? Do you want to finish the game faster?
Although, as I said in a post a little bit earlier, I could care less if you get more credits for playing open, there's really no point. If you so desperately need to earn credits quickly, go into solo, otherwise it's a level playing field if you always play in Open, just like the others who always play in Open. As to encouraging people to play in Open, well you need to read some of the nearly 10,000 posts. People play the modes that suit them, that they want to, and it's unlikely a few extra credits are going to get players who want to trade in Solo to come into Open. The time lost if they get interdicted and / pirated or destroyed just once in a session will almost certainly not be compensated by a percentage profit markup. They will already be playing Open if that's where they like to play.
There's not 400 Billion stars in the game, if you're only a trader/bounty hunter or pirate. There's 10,000, or however many populated systems you need to be in, and a bunch of useless space.
You can only avoid Players for so long. Idk about you but even on the outer edge of space I still see players. Like I always say to counter this "argument", a chance of risk is still a chance of risk. Solo no risk from player death, group, chance size depends on the group. Open, would you look at that, a risk of being attacked.
Solo, no risk of getting killed by a player
Group, you pick you're own risk level
Open, risk of getting killed by a player.
All you're doing is proving my point, how is it balanced when there's a correct choice to the question of, how do I make money and not get killed?
If I give you three choices, getting punched in the face, a pat on the head, or a 5 $ bill, there's no choice, there's one choice and two choices that are worse, aka trap choices.
Last edited:
Excellent points ocflyer; well spoken. +1
Quick off topic related to this - speaking of "useless space", what is with the capital systems !?!?
I feel like I should be donating stuff to the Feds and Empire factions capitals.
I could have wept when I seen the lack of gear in Sol !
Funny how we see ends of the spectrum posting on this (depending on thread content).
Some folks go on how they trade in Open and have not seen anyone since release, others go on how they see loads of players every session - I suspect it has more to do with, how much you want to be left alone in Open.
Seem you say this (and yes it is true) - how many people in this thread have argued the risk is minimal to non existent in Open (as part of the "reasoning" for people to play Open).
I've lost count of the "Open is not that bad" points put over.....
So, in a way, you are countering those people by saying there is risk when they say there isn't one.
Define "Correct".
I've used Solo once since I started playing - for about 10 minutes, then thought to myself, why am in Solo?
I could not justify to myself being in Solo and jumped over to one of the Groups I play in (The reason I went Solo to start with, I was early online that day and my real life friends were not going to be on for a while - missed the fact in Solo they'd not be able to join me! d'uh).
So for me, Groups is my "correct" play mode.
My friend in Wales has a poor connection - he can only team up with 1 person at a time or it lags out and disconnects him, he has earnt more alone - so Solo is "correct" for him.
This has nothing to do with the game and is utter .
Right now, player choice is what matters, and we all have the same choices and consequences (balanced and fair) - making things worth more in 1 mode over the others removes all choice (unbalanced, unfair to those who cannot use that mode).
Then we are back to the points of "we can play open anyway, without seeing anyone", which if I recall is where you went quite last time, as that is out of FDs hands.
- Status