This is ! You do realise there is absolutely no difference in risk between the player who is in solo and the player who is in open but trading in areas not populated by the ganking jerks and not seeing other players? Why do you people not understand that? What's next, penalise the player who does his trading etc away from the core systems simply because the murderers and gankers can't easily find them out there or attempt to blockade trade routes? Auto-regulate, as you call it, trading that is done outside the core systems? Just goes to show that people like you STILL don't understand how this game works......
- Status
This is ! You do realise there is absolutely no difference in risk between the player who is in solo and the player who is in open but trading in areas not populated by the ganking jerks and not seeing other players? Why do you people not understand that? What's next, penalise the player who does his trading etc away from the core systems simply because the murderers and gankers can't easily find them out there or attempt to blockade trade routes? Auto-regulate, as you call it, trading that is done outside the core systems? Just goes to show that people like you STILL don't understand how this game works......
While I can see the point of your statement, can you see the point of the following?
Committing a crime should auto-regulate itself. The more heinous a crime, the higher (and depending on the severity, the permanence) the penalty should be.
But the lack of sanctions in open has broken this, making the committing of vile actions a minimal risk.
The way I see it, if you purport your self to be a criminal, wear your ranking with courage! Why hide behind a game mechanic?
To blast someone to smithereens and then "switch" to clean status by way of paying a paltry fine,,,,,,, well,,,,,,
Its "switching". Plain and simple.
And suggestion is different to the proposed nerf to solo contributions how exactly?
All 3 modes are available to everyone, so putting an arbitrary limit on what solo earnings are worth compared to open is no different to limiting peoples play according to who has free time to play.
Or in plain English, putting a limit on a mode EVERYONE CAN USE because a mode SOME CAN USE seem to earn less, is hurtful to EVERYONE. See?
(and yes, there are people in this thread who have stated they cannot use groups or open for technical reasons and I personally know someone who struggle in group but is okay in solo)
It's not - just as placing a limit on those who cannot play open is of no benefit to me either (as I can play in open) - but makes for good satire, as others have pointed out
So, to sum it up, not everybody has the luxury of fibre optic broadband - so don't nerf the only mode they can use (or buff the one they cannot use)
Now, this is a good point. In reality, if you kill someone you can't just pay someone to make it all go away, legally. You go to jail or go on the run for the rest of your life (or enough that it would be equivalent to that in the ED universe).
So surely, npc fines etc. should be able to be paid off and any fines accrued for anything up to actually killing a player (ie shooting him a bit on purpose or accident but not blowing him up) should be able to be paid off but if you kill a player you should be permanently Wanted. The more players you kill, the more Wanted you become to the point where eventually everyone (ie all npcs) will try to kill you on sight. So, you develop a reputation as a mass murderer or serial killer. If you go to a nav beacon everyone tries to kill you as soon as you land. If you go to a RES everyone stops what they're doing and tries to kill you. Consequence for player murder. Real and permanent consequence.
But then, wouldn't this be unfair to the play styles of those that enjoy unconsensual pvp? Perhaps, but no more than those that enjoy unconsensual pvp forcing others to endure said pvp or penalising others for not being forced to endure the same.
If people could just understand that the very nature of the game, the fact that it's heavily instanced even in open, utterly undermines all of their arguments we'd all be able to just get on and enjoy the game.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you want unconsensual pvp and the ability to affect everyone in the game ED is not for you. There are other games out there that cater for that style of play but ED, by design, does not.
I see the elephant is still sitting in the room. It's funny too because competent developers solved this entire debate years ago. I commend FD on taking multiplayer design backward decades. Well done.
If it was designed properly from the start, there would be no debate.
If it was designed properly from the start, there would be no debate.
Last edited:
totally agree with you. I in no way endorse any out of game mechanic to provide in game advantages.
But using one exploit to counteract another doesn't seem to be the best solution. All these issues should b addressed, not side-stepped.
And suggestion is different to the proposed nerf to solo contributions how exactly?
All 3 modes are available to everyone, so putting an arbitrary limit on what solo earnings are worth compared to open is no different to limiting peoples play according to who has free time to play.
Or in plain English, putting a limit on a mode EVERYONE CAN USE because a mode SOME CAN USE seem to earn less, is hurtful to EVERYONE. See?
(and yes, there are people in this thread who have stated they cannot use groups or open for technical reasons and I personally know someone who struggle in group but is okay in solo)
It's not - just as placing a limit on those who cannot play open is of no benefit to me either (as I can play in open) - but makes for good satire, as others have pointed out
So, to sum it up, not everybody has the luxury of fibre optic broadband - so don't nerf the only mode they can use (or buff the one they cannot use)
but a nerf, would not have any effect on a solo player - they do not have any reference point outside of solo for this nerf to be measured against.
However, a player who switches, does explicitly get an influence from the differences between the modes.
I still do not understand this knee-jerk response to the concept of a "nerf"
In actual fact, a nerf is beneficial to anyone who has made gains prior to the nerf, as it is increasing the value of the work they have done. A "buff" on the other hand, actually causes inflation and devalues the time already expended. It's basic economics.
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.
Last edited:
Ooh! Another negative post from Bigcheese! Wow, what a surprise
Just because you don't like the way it's designed doesn't make the design bad. It just means you don't like it. Considering all your negative remarks in all the threads I've read it would appear that you simply don't like Elite Dangerous. Trying to force EDev to change the game into something you do like is pretty selfish considering there are loads of people playing it and loving it. Not to mention pointless considering they've already stated they won't be changing it into what you want.
Agreed. I have never combat logged or switched from open to group or solo once I start a gaming session. Whatever I start in, that's what I finish in. And by finish I mean, safely docked and shutting down for the day/night.
And for the record: I mostly play in Mobius.
Last edited:
Ooh! Another negative post from Bigcheese! Wow, what a surprise
Just because you don't like the way it's designed doesn't make the design bad. It just means you don't like it. Considering all your negative remarks in all the threads I've read it would appear that you simply don't like Elite Dangerous. Trying to force EDev to change the game into something you do like is pretty selfish considering there are loads of people playing it and loving it. Not to mention pointless considering they've already stated they won't be changing it into what you want.
Translation: I have no sensible argument whatsoever.
I know they won't change it, it's just funny to see this debate still here when the answer was figured out years and years ago.
If they did it right from the start, there would be no debate and we both know it. I have no idea who you are btw so stay on topic and spare us these cop out posts. Thanks.
Well, as you're determined to ignore the arguments made and try to force this around in circles, enjoy chasing your tail.
I've used plain English and Satire - each time, you "fail to understand".
Either way, more than enough of the community have said that one sided and unfair nerfs to solo will result in a bigger loss of players, than if the handful of spiteful Open Mode non-consensual PvPers leave - so it's down to FD, how much money do they want to make out of ED ?
Anyone else got anything new to try? or are we due another loop, some old arguments have been ignored for a while
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Erm, you missed the part where he pointed out - your opinion of the design, does not make it a bad design.
That was a sensible argument and a logical one to.
Anyone else got anything new to try? or are we due another loop, some old arguments have been ignored for a while
And if they designed it right the first time, we'd have no debate at all.
You are correct. It is bad design regardless of my opinion.
Last edited:
The game should reward based on risk, so you could use a multiplier of sort (2x/whatever) if you trade in the open. Something that would be a sufficient reward to go out there and risk it.
Overall the game is OK from pirate/smuggler end, there should be no further disincentive to them (if anything there need to be even more incentive to do piracy), but on the other hand there need to be enough of an incentive for traders to be willing to risk the interdictions by other players and even more importantly to fight back.
Also while fighting back in a Python is viable, doing the same in a T9 is just not an option, so splitting systems into "safe" ones where you get NPC escorts in open with current levels of profit (plus maybe a bonus of some sort), vs Anarchy ones, with even higher margins possible, but where you are on your own, should be some sort of long term goal.
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.
Overall the game is OK from pirate/smuggler end, there should be no further disincentive to them (if anything there need to be even more incentive to do piracy), but on the other hand there need to be enough of an incentive for traders to be willing to risk the interdictions by other players and even more importantly to fight back.
Also while fighting back in a Python is viable, doing the same in a T9 is just not an option, so splitting systems into "safe" ones where you get NPC escorts in open with current levels of profit (plus maybe a bonus of some sort), vs Anarchy ones, with even higher margins possible, but where you are on your own, should be some sort of long term goal.
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.
Last edited:
Well, as you're determined to ignore the arguments made and try to force this around in circles, enjoy chasing your tail.
I've used plain English and Satire - each time, you "fail to understand".
Either way, more than enough of the community have said that one sided and unfair nerfs to solo will result in a bigger loss of players, than if the handful of spiteful Open Mode non-consensual PvPers leave - so it's down to FD, how much money do they want to make out of ED ?
Anyone else got anything new to try? or are we due another loop, some old arguments have been ignored for a while
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Erm, you missed the part where he pointed out - your opinion of the design, does not make it a bad design.
That was a sensible argument and a logical one to.
I always enjoy talking to you though jockey. I feel I have found a kindred spirit.
I don't think I have seen a single argument from you that holds water though. You have claimed that a nerf would initiate a class war, but it is you that is trying to create this class structure.
You haven't explained how someone in solo is affected by a NERF.
lets imagine a scenario... a player (in whatever mode, playing whatever style) can make x credits (lets say 100m) in 4 weeks.
if this player was nerfed - maybe they would take 5 weeks to make the same number of credits.
If the player was buffed - they can do it in 3 weeks.
You seem to assume that the second scenario is always better than the first. Why?
.
From the start I have been discussing the issue of tactical switching. It is prevalent because there is a significant difference between the modes.
I believe that there are some people who are switching, purely for an effective buff to their game. Not because of any of the merits to the particular game mode, but because they can seek an advantage.
The fact that this thread is 435 pages long would suggest I am not the only person who sees an issue.
I have not said we should nerf, or buff anyone. I just think the issues need to be addressed in some way.
You seem to say, the issue doesn't bother me, so I want to prevent any changes. This is a selfish position.
I disagree. Most traders would stop playing all together.
I paid the same price for the game as you did, I don't expected to be treated like a second class citizen when I play it.
You're quite correct, you don't.
I have made my arguments in this thread. It's just nice to see that you're still as negative as always and have nothing of value to add, yet hypocritically accuse others of the same. As for you finding it funny that they didn't design the game that you want, I don't really get it. Why do you consider you not liking ED to be funny?
Lots of different threads in this debate.......
.
But in short, the only way I can see to make it "Fair"....is if the Devs can somehow re-create in Solo, what is happening in Open.......that would mean MORE danger around Rares hubs........MORE danger when trading in war zones......etc. The NPCs will have to up their game, but I can't see anyone complaining, as they keep saying they want the same game and rewards......well, that's the way to do it. Make each mode equally hard.........
.
If some don't like this, and want an "easy mode" even around Rares Hubs and War Zones.........then I suggest they move on to a quieter part of the galaxy.
.
But in short, the only way I can see to make it "Fair"....is if the Devs can somehow re-create in Solo, what is happening in Open.......that would mean MORE danger around Rares hubs........MORE danger when trading in war zones......etc. The NPCs will have to up their game, but I can't see anyone complaining, as they keep saying they want the same game and rewards......well, that's the way to do it. Make each mode equally hard.........
.
If some don't like this, and want an "easy mode" even around Rares Hubs and War Zones.........then I suggest they move on to a quieter part of the galaxy.
If they did it right the first time, there would be no debate.
Not much else needs to be said.
And then you could simply go to a system 100Ly away from the core, never see another player and still get 2x the profits.
Other than they did it right first time in my opinion and that of what appears to be the majority considering how few are actually complaining about it compared to how many are enjoying playing it. You not thinking they did is simply your opinion and not fact.
I'm not sure how I can put this more simply to you. Either you aren't able to understand the difference (and you're blinkered to the point of being someone who should be ignored) or you're being a troll. Difficult to tell which.
- Status