Just to set the record straight here, why do you think it isn't fair to be allowed to move freely between modes?
Last edited:
- Status
Just to set the record straight here, why do you think it isn't fair to be allowed to move freely between modes?
Because the ability to switch modes gives advantage ONLY to traders and PvE'rs whilst giving NONE to PvPers.
Sorry, most of the 'whining' threads are from people wanting pew pew and not getting enough of it, I see very few traders posting, 'I don't feel safe in open, it's upsetting me'.
You don't actually even need to pick safe routes - you just need to keep your wits about you in supercruise - drop out and re-route to avoid trouble where needed - all whilst remaining in open.
Or if somebody, lets say for the sake of argument me, had made tons of money in open trading in the middle of nowhere and blew you up, would that be fair? How could you tell?
I've been playing, in open, since launch and have lost not a single credit due to other players. I've been playing on and off since the start of PB, and the rough figures I kept show that I have lost three times as many credits to flying while drunk as I have to PVP. And to be fair, I quite like a bit of PVP now and again. I got into quite a few scrapes with the Freeport Anaconda and other such friendly types.
Now, I could go to FDEV and demand that they NERF RIOJA NOW!, but the fact is that as far as I can tell other players have such a laughably negligible effect on the ability to earn credits that the difference between solo and open simply don't matter. The difference between a glass and a bottle on the other hand, does.
Please provide case by case examples. If as many traders are 'whining' about this as you suggest then you should be able to do this. then we can look at each case on its merits and see if it is as you say, or if you are just making one big generalisation.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The PvPers can change modes too.... The fact that they may choose not to is up to them.
Again, the paranoia with regards to this assumption astounds me. I would bet a good number of those playing solo are doing so because they want to avoid player interaction, be that to avoid pvp, to avoid player driven events, (such as system blockades), or simply because they think Elite should be a more solitary experience, these players will more than likely forever remain in solo. Of the remaining players, those that switch between solo and open, many of them will do so for many, many reasons, be that inconsistent internet, (through location/laptops play etc etc), their mood at the time, whether or not their friends that they normally play group with are online and no doubt many more reasons.
Of all these players, the vast majority are not going to be pvp centric people, they are not pvp centric in their haulers, they are not pvp centric in their cobras and they are not pvp centric in their type 6's. These players are not interested or likely to become ardent pvp'ers overnight simply because their credit balance hits a certain level, or because they are flying a certain ship - the majority simply are not interested in blowing your ship up.
Of the very very few - and there is no evidence to suggest it is more than that, that are pvp players that are 'arming themselves to the teeth' in solo and then 'coming to get you' have you actually considered the odds of you even encountering one of these players? Once you take into account time zones, instancing and galaxy size the odds are vanishingly small, and besides that, as has been said many times you will never know how that ship was obtained, when it was obtained or why it was obtained. As I said, I'm astounded by this 'argument', an argument with no basis other than a paranoid perception of a remote possibility. It is not healthy to play this game, (or any other), based on the fear of the 'worst possible scenario' - especially when you are probably more likely to be hit by lightning next time you leave your home - I hope I haven't just convinced you to become a recluse by the way!
The whole fun in an interactive game is the chaos and motivations behind what players are doing and how that impacts the systems they are in. We have this awesome dynamic sandbox in an interactive environment and I'm maximizing its potential. I'm creating danger and dynamic events for players, I would rather they just say thank you.
They can also trade - but they don't want to do that either..
Could you clarify that please? What are these advantages and why do PvPers not get any advantages? Edited to add: And you still haven't answered this question... How do you know the player didn't make all his money in Open? Very easy to do, just go somewhere quiet.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Enjoyment is subjective - just because you enjoy the interactions, it does not necessarily follow that other players will thank you for the encounter.
Case by case examples ? There's like 110+ pages of said whine in this very thread.
Okay... since logic isn't very strong with you let me ask you this: HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO PVP ALL BY MYSELF IN SOLO MODE ? /facepalm
True.. I think its wrong either way. I don't have any expectation for it to change, I think Frontier is set on this system so its pointless to debate, but if I was in charge there would be two different modes of play, each with a character slot that is separate. And I do agree with you I think the penalties for being "evil" if you will should be harsher, but I do think they should remain localized. If Im in an independent system where a faction I hate exists and I choose to wage war against them and anyone who helps them, they should hate me back with equal ferocity. You are right that despite my constant escalation for violence in the system there has been little response.
I think there should be three things implemented in the game.
1. If your faction decreases sufficiently the faction sends information to a bounty hunter network that players can see that identifies where you are so player bounty hunters can more easily find notorious criminals.
2. I think the security forces should escalate their response as you escalate your violence against the system.
3. I think traders entering a system with a notorious criminal present should be warned via comms about your presence.
I think all those things are in the spirit of the game and I would be fine with it.
Case by case examples ? There's like 110+ pages of said whine in this very thread.
Then bringing up some examples should not be too much of a strain. Once you do this we can go over them like I suggested.
If you want to avoid interaction, you shouldn't play open. It makes no sense to insist on the interaction, but cherry pick which sort of interaction you shall have. You either play in Elites dangerous universe or you don't, you can't insist it be safer for you as else what's the point? May as well call it Elite: Mostly Harmless.
Doesnt make a lot of sense to me.
You can be a trader, your choice and you can switch to solo to trade, your choice.
You saying it's unfair but you mean it is unbalanced between trader and PvPer because of solo.
Not everyone wants to compete though and if there are traders in open you have nothing to complain about.
Indeed, most of the player ships I see in open look they are traders.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I did not say that there would be cherry-picking of interactions, I was simply suggesting that just because one player enjoys an interaction does not mean that the other player(s) involved necessarily did - the risk that players will not enjoy some interactions in open is a given.
Who defined 'interaction' as simply PvP? There are many more interactions other than shooting at each other. I choose to play in open so that I can co-operate with others. Is this the sort of interaction you want us to avoid? If you mean Pvp, please say PvP and don't try to make the term interaction into something so one dimensional.
- Status