No I did not. It doesn't even involve changing solo/private/open so you clearly dont know what you are talking about.
- Status
No I did not. It doesn't even involve changing solo/private/open so you clearly dont know what you are talking about.
noone is interested in new ideas
everyone is busy claiming to hold the ultimate truth.
i gave up on that matter... almost.
They are punished already. They get bounties, can be shot at by *any* player in the wanted system, and any player with a k-scanner can hunt them for said bounty, they will get targetted by security services at stations loyal to the wanting faction. A small tweak to prevent bounties from being payed off instantly by rich commanders is something I think almost everyone supports. Beyond that, 'punishing' them is unwarranted. They get bountied, and shot by the cops -- that's where it should end. Players should band together to protect traders and not expect NPC and game mechanics to do it for them.
edit: the people in favor or punishing them are the same crowd asking FD not to 'eve'ify the game. Well, please don't introduce mechanics that prevent piracy in 90% of the game world like eve does. invincible all powerful police forces of NPC's are not a good thing, esp in a game where people have the option of switching to solo mode. I might get behind a more powerful police force if solo and private group was vaporised, but unless that happens -- just no.
Last edited:
No they are not. I've put out a compromise several times to discuss that doesnt touch solo/private open yet no one even mentioned it. (well maybe one person)
Here it is again this time pasted in. Maybe people are too lazy to click links.
Solution to open being forced to grind in solo in order to be effective
Solo, private, and open don’t need to be changed in order to avoid discouraging open players into solo.
Proposal:
In combat zones, the combat bond increases according to the difficulty of the ship type. As players are more difficult, recognize the increase in difficulty level and boost how much killing a player contributes to the war effort – keep combat bond reward the same, but have the amount it contributes toward the community goal equal to or some factor less than the rebuy of the ship destroyed. Keeping the contribution to the war effort less than or equal to the rebuy of the ship prevents exploits where a player joins a faction and purposely dies to help the other faction. This can still be done but at great expense to the commander… unless he’s doing it in a sidewinder in which case the contribution is hardly helping since its equal or less than the rebuy. He might as well be grinding out a mil per hour in solo.
Analysis:
Let’s take the example where the contribution of killing a commander’s ship is equal to his rebuy. You kill a commander in a cobra worth 1 million. You get 8000 in combat bonds, his rebuy is 20,000, and that counts 20,000 towards the war effort.
A second example would be destroying a vulture with a rebuy of 700,000. You would get 20,000 in bonds, he would lose 700,000 but it would go to your war effort. Does this seem like a little much? If you play in open you know how often those commanders escape. If you are lucky you might get two an hour assuming you don’t die yourself. Two an hour would be 1.4 mill an hour, split that among the likely four players that hit him and that’s 350,000 per hour. Stack what you are probably getting in open (200k to 300k) and now you are at 750,000 if you are lucky. This is all assuming you haven’t died and it’s still less than a mil per hour in solo. Remember this is contribution to the community goal, and the player only made 5k off splitting the Vulture’s combat bonds with friends. Still too much? Well you can always apply diminishing returns as the rebuy cost increases reducing it by an increasing percentage to keep it in check.
Wrap up:
- Players are the hardest thing to kill so benefit of killing them is increased to reflect this.
- Combat bond profit remains the same
- Contribution towards the war effort is equal to or less than rebuy to prevent exploits
- Solo/private/open is unchanged
Thing is Walt - your posts are actually very well reasoned and do attempt to see both sides - and you obviously put a lot of effort into researching and making them.
If you were the "face" of the side you represent with the authority to handle the other less reasonable types on that side the discussion might progress more amicably.
But you are still trying to change what is - into something it isn't.
Last edited:
You are right. It just hit me I'm trying to get a group of people on the internet to stop arguing.... What is wrong with me, lol. The solution is irrelevant.
nop was to have ppl play their way...
The way players play in open would change with different mechanics though. Right now your actions are meaningless as long as you have enough money to cover insurance, which creates bored people having fun at the expense of others. Ofcourse the community is always going to split up over certain things, but to be quite honest it seems to me FD is using the whole "play your way" solo/group/open argument as an excuse for lazyness. Shouldn't every artist, including game designers, have a vision of how their work is to be experienced?
I am open to any idea that does not buff one group over another, nerf one group or give 1 section of the player base more value than other.
Something equal and balanced.
I all ready said I like the 2 CG option that was mentioned a few pages back, so running 2 CG at the same time for opposing factions - giving everyone the chance to chip in for the one they want - FD do the math and see who won at the end... like a big game of tug of war.
Your idea is in the middle ground (ish) but if I read it right, it still means that while everyone gets the same cash, contributions to the CG are not equal... and I'm sorry, but how is someone else time worth more than mine ?
What about people who can sit on the PC all day? should they be valued less as I can only play a couple of hours each day?
eve devs have made a conscious decision to allow that. It is not a natural result of having a policed, and unpoliced division. To assume it is the only way is showing a lack of imagination.
good thing is that ur thread with ur ideas wasnt go down to solo/open ;D
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
eve is pvp centric game and eve's devs want to make ppl to go and pvp ....
Not completely true. Newsletter #50 says implementing an offline mode isn't out of question. Until there is a specific, direct answer telling offline mode isn't ever coming, it's not end of story — and, even if such answer comes, it would still not be guaranteed, as Frontier already changed their minds on things they spent years confirming before.
Besides, there is the solo mode in the meanwhile. Not even nearly as entertaining as a proper offline mode could be, but for the time being it will have to do. Which is why I will fight tooth and nail to prevent solo, and group, modes from ever being nerfed.
Very interesting when you consider the usual bias when looking at forum participation according to gameplay preferences. Combining that pool with the usual forum participation bias between group and solo players I've seen in other MMOs (mainly LotRO, the one place where the devs actually released some numbers), it would put solo players at close to 80%, which is in line with what I would expect of a game with ED's solo/group/open structure.
That can be very wrong, of course; I'm extrapolating information from a forum pool (typically a bad idea in itself) using data from games in other genres (a recipe for introducing errors). It does seem like strong evidence that solo players are more common than open players, though, given that both forum participation and the willingness to engage in multiplayer activities typically increase with how sociable the player is.
What is fun for different persons vary wildly. Back as a child I found math homework to be very fun, I even played math-teaching educational games for fun; can you relate?
67.42% of all statistics found in the Internet are made up
Being serious, interpreting pools isn't as easy as looking at some numbers and going with the largest one. And statistics can never be taken as facts, they are merely an attempt to capture or predict reality, often with a large error margin. If they were easy, I wouldn't have needed to take multiple courses in statistics to get my first degree.
I suspect the "right circumstances," for many of the players in Mobius, would be a PvP flag that they could flip to become completely immune to other players. I don't think the PvPers in open would like that, though.
First, until a month before launch, ED was being advertised as both an online and an offline game.
Second, the game was always very explicit about players being able to block everyone else if they so desired, so it got a large number of players that want full control over who, and when, they meet.
Third, not all player interaction is equal. I love constructive player interaction, but I would rather not play than risk unwanted player conflict.
Not quite. It's just an indication that many players have a different opinion of what they find fun. Many players in solo and groups will never want to play in open as long as PvP in open is possible, even if it's rare. And perception is a (swear filter ate my word of choice); a single negative experience can become far more prominent than a month of positive experiences for someone, driving a player to leave open due to a single incident.
Well the thread wasn't about open/private/solo but that single post several pages in that thread does address one of the community goals issues that people seemed to be concerned about here.
No they are not. I've put out a compromise several times to discuss that doesnt touch solo/private open yet no one even mentioned it. (well maybe one person)
Here it is again this time pasted in. Maybe people are too lazy to click links.
Solution to open being forced to grind in solo in order to be effective
Solo, private, and open don’t need to be changed in order to avoid discouraging open players into solo.
Proposal:
In combat zones, the combat bond increases according to the difficulty of the ship type. As players are more difficult, recognize the increase in difficulty level and boost how much killing a player contributes to the war effort – keep combat bond reward the same, but have the amount it contributes toward the community goal equal to or some factor less than the rebuy of the ship destroyed. Keeping the contribution to the war effort less than or equal to the rebuy of the ship prevents exploits where a player joins a faction and purposely dies to help the other faction. This can still be done but at great expense to the commander… unless he’s doing it in a sidewinder in which case the contribution is hardly helping since its equal or less than the rebuy. He might as well be grinding out a mil per hour in solo.
Analysis:
Let’s take the example where the contribution of killing a commander’s ship is equal to his rebuy. You kill a commander in a cobra worth 1 million. You get 8000 in combat bonds, his rebuy is 20,000, and that counts 20,000 towards the war effort.
A second example would be destroying a vulture with a rebuy of 700,000. You would get 20,000 in bonds, he would lose 700,000 but it would go to your war effort. Does this seem like a little much? If you play in open you know how often those commanders escape. If you are lucky you might get two an hour assuming you don’t die yourself. Two an hour would be 1.4 mill an hour, split that among the likely four players that hit him and that’s 350,000 per hour. Stack what you are probably getting in open (200k to 300k) and now you are at 750,000 if you are lucky. This is all assuming you haven’t died and it’s still less than a mil per hour in solo. Remember this is contribution to the community goal, and the player only made 5k off splitting the Vulture’s combat bonds with friends. Still too much? Well you can always apply diminishing returns as the rebuy cost increases reducing it by an increasing percentage to keep it in check.
Wrap up:
- Players are the hardest thing to kill so benefit of killing them is increased to reflect this.
- Combat bond profit remains the same
- Contribution towards the war effort is equal to or less than rebuy to prevent exploits
- Solo/private/open is unchanged
I like this. It goes some way to repairing the imbalance between solo and open for this particular game style.
But I think the problem is wider that that.
We need to address the concept of tactical mode changes. Somehow remove the incentive for this tactical switch, while not enacting impassable barriers for those with other, more valid reasons to switch.
well, +1 for trying...
Forgot to say, tons of respect for trying by the way - that is way more effort than a fair few in the thread have done.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I don't agree that there is a need to artificially limit player' freedom to switch between game modes, especially as mode switching is explicitly mentioned as a means of avoiding perceived griefing:
oh, ok. consider me enlightened.
- Status