Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
- Status
Share a link then?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Ed hasn't been a failure at all, infact it is doing well. Only those of you who want one mode keep calling it a failure because that is what you hope it becomes.
I blatantly refute your arguments because they are far reaching, pulling analogies out of thin air which don't fit together, comparing ED to games that it really isn't comparable to. And you keep claiming opinions as facts, or using Steam #'s as absolute #'s for ED.
And your casino analogy doesn't work either because you are going off the premises (not fact) that You will always have the same amount of money or lesser than me even though we have the same # of drinks.
You spend money on better modules... so do I.. you keep trying to say PVP in ED is a gamble so you deserve more reward, yet AGAIN... every time anyone leaves a station it is a gamble no matter the mode they are in. You PURPOSELY putting yourself in harms way, aka Open as you deem Open a greater risk, does equate greater reward.
You choose... that is all you do. You choose, and that effects your game not your "reward" all get the same or loose the same depending on what they do in context of the game. It is balanced. Adding so that you get extra rewards unbalances the modes... nothing you can say changes this actual fact.
Not bad. This will be much work though. Will be way easier to add additional BGS layer and add another open mode, with different save files.
And why 1% money reward is no-go? Check out link in my signature, though.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... because it does not actually address the issue. It's a blanket bonus and is not targeted at hazardous encounters.
It ignores the risk related to a player encounter completely - especially if one of the players is in a ship that vastly exceeds the combat capabilities of the other. In that case, the player in the more powerful ship should, in my opinion, be paid less rather than more.
Of course this should also reasonably apply to NPC encounters - which might lead to a requirement to revise payments that relate to any situation where combat occurs.
Playing in open is more about evading it. This bonus is here to compensate for more cautious playstyle.
And, on the side note, had you ever played WoW?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
When you are doing PvP stuff like I do at the moment - sure you are. And it works fine in that regard.
But when you do something else - you switch to solo. As everyone does, including me. Or at least a majority.
This makes Open a defective game mode. And that is what bothers me. While it should be an intended gameplay experience. Only for PvP people, same as Mobious is for PvE.
If they would make CQC accepting in-game ships and remove those Q3 arena bonuses - Open will become empty. Maybe that is why they are not doing it.
Last edited:
Just the other week someone else was caught by a NPC Anaconda and lost a T-9 and all their cargo... should they come on here clamoring for reward? Just because YOU and some others don't have an issue with NPCs doesn't mean the rest of the community is the same. Yet you assume that and think that NPC = no risk PC = risk so you must have a reward because you are in a mode with PC's in it. Sorry wrong, not even close to correct. In ANY of the modes you are putting yourself in harms way.
And you keep claiming that it would unbalance situation for me and other PVErs... you blatantly ignore that PVPers are telling you that you are full of it. That what you want would unbalance the modes so quit with the "PVErs" are the ones who don't want this because we want the status quo...
Wrong... Mobius created a PVE PG because none existed and one most likely never will. Open is Open... not intended for PVP, but for everyone who doesn't play in a PG or Solo.
And quit asking everyone if they play or played WOW.. it has NOTHING to do with the conversation...
Also I find it funny that you keep claiming again that you want hardcore.. yet admit that you leave open to do things in Solo because you personally find it easier... That is hypocrisy.
Last edited:
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Exclusive to a game mode enemy type. With better weapons. And better AI. Additional one. Why more risk means that it the same to other modes?
Point me to a quote when PvPers tell me that I am full of it. I know I can be overconfident from time to time, yet I am getting total refutation of my arguments with (maybe another) totally half-baked ones.
Of course you want status quo. But it is favored your way, and not mine. Everything is alright?
Why not add a PvP and PvE flags for open for those who want it?
It sort of does. And how do you know if you never played it?
Forums there are filled with the same discussions we are having now. Where PvE people protect others from evil gankers, and PvP people tell them to just go on PvE servers.
https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/17617772783
https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/17616966911
Just a couple. You can find more if you want.
Last edited:
You'll have to ask Frontier this question, I cannot answer it.
I think mixed mode games are stupid, PvP players and PvE players have never been able to coexist.
This game is a perfect example of it, the game can be 100% PvE or 100% PvP (though slower to progress) - and neither side is happy the other side is there.
PvP choices hold back PvE choices. PvE choices kill off PvP choices.
Frontier should have picked one, they should have either been a PvP game (open mode only) or a PvE game (PG / Solo only).
Sorry but the exact opposite because He is the one clamoring for hardcore... he is the one wanting things to be tough, yet when things get tough he bails to solo to AVOID PVPers... the PVPers that he claims to be....
Hardcore is not about taking the hardest way possible. In hardcore games, there are no easy ways.
It is about taking the most efficient way. And practice in that efficiency. Or you would not fare too far.
There are no contradictions. And no hypocrisy.
I will have to go look to find exact ones but I remember people telling you they PVP..
I've even suggested a flag system... PVPers are the ones yelling it down
Please tell me where I have said I never played WOW... I have, and who cares what is on WOW's forums... that is WOW's forums not Elite Dangerous's... We don't have separate servers.. we have modes and they are all connected.
Alex DeVries
Banned
pvp and pve do not have a lot of overlap to be sure. I think there are some that have no issues and pretty much do their thing but at least the most vocal have issues with the other player choices.
Risk vs reward is such a loaded phrase since each player is different.
A mode choice is not automatically more risky than another especially when it has been stated in many posts how people dont see each other even in open.
If a mode is only risky when the player is at cgs or engineers or 'hot spots' rewarding the whole mode is foolish.
If you take it farther and actually apply real risk to the player it gets much more complicated such as two combat ships would pose risk to each other but a combat ship vs a trade ship only the trade ship is taking any risk. Of course that should apply to npcs as well if you really are interested in balance, like the c&p applies to npcs as well.
Risk vs reward is such a loaded phrase since each player is different.
A mode choice is not automatically more risky than another especially when it has been stated in many posts how people dont see each other even in open.
If a mode is only risky when the player is at cgs or engineers or 'hot spots' rewarding the whole mode is foolish.
If you take it farther and actually apply real risk to the player it gets much more complicated such as two combat ships would pose risk to each other but a combat ship vs a trade ship only the trade ship is taking any risk. Of course that should apply to npcs as well if you really are interested in balance, like the c&p applies to npcs as well.
And I belive that situation is salvageable. It have to be.
For BGS and PP, soon will be focused feedback.
And as long as it would be made in a way where PvP squadrons cannot affect PvE ones and reversed, but they can do so with the help of PvE and PvP ones respectively, this would be fine.
For monetary bonus for open, still, why 1% would be a no-go? Every explorer can get ganked, for instance.
And how about a layer on the gal-map with criminal activity on it? More activity - more reward. But those levels linger for some time and display time since last crime commited.
Or rare goods, every pirate knows the routes as well as traders do. So there should be something as well. Would be a way to revitalise it actualy.
Last edited:
Sorry, but really? You claim in hardcore games there is not easy way... while at the same time claiming you need a rewards for open because it is harder... yet you FREELY.. admit that you go into solo to do things because you feel it is more effieiencso that you would not get PVPd....
How can you not see it?
hard core
noun: hardcore
the most active, committed, or doctrinaire members of a group or movement.
"there is always a hard core of trusty stalwarts"
synonyms: diehard, staunch, dedicated, committed, steadfast, dyed-in-the-wool, long-standing; hardline, extreme, entrenched, radical, intransigent, uncompromising, rigid
"hard-core fans of the sport"
So you are not a Hardcore PVPer nor are you a Hardcore Open player... both of which you claim to be... and you want Fdev to reward you more then others for your playstyle...
- Status