Would this make you play Open more?

NY09

NY09
Viking84 said:
This is an idea I have presented before, but I believe it is relevant given all the PvP / PvE discussions lately:


Theory:
The main reason for the PvP hatred is that it doesn't happen by choice. Being blown out of the sky for no reason can happen anywhere, any time, with little to no consequence for the attacker. For PvE'ers that aren't specialised in combat, or even good combat pilots that haven't spent a large amount of time engineering, there is very little to do about this other than escaping (waste of time) or moving to PG or Solo.


Solution:
Ensure that the different system security states actually mean something, AND give incentives for moving into more dangerous areas of space.

1. System Security. The security response in a high security system should be near instant and overwhelming. The defending ship should only have to be able to survive say 15 seconds before the attacker is swarmed by god-like system security ships and nuked to oblivion. Scale this progressively down to where low sec is more or less like medium sec is now, and anarchy is just that, anarchy.

2. Security State. Make the system security state obvious. Make a tutorial that explains to new players that they should remain in high sec systems, plot routes through high sec systems, and only take missions to high sec systems if they wish to remain safe.

3. Rewards. Make rewards for taking missions going to low sec or anarchy systems considerably higher (twice?) what you would get for a similar mission in high sec. Same for CG's - higher risk = higher reward. Ensure that this is true also in Solo by populating low sec systems with aggressive highly engineered pirates, bounty hunters and psychos.

4. Locations. Spread the system security states out according to some logic. Make some areas of the bubble dangerous, others safer, create crime hotspots, maybe connected to large material deposits (gold rush style).



Summary:
In short, make PvP a player choice even in Open. Stray out of high sec and you risk getting shot at. For me this would mean that instead of getting killed and thinking "what an ing *** he was" I'd think "damn, I should have stayed in high sec because I suck". It would be my choice to risk leaving high sec for a higher reward or a lucrative CG.

Would this entice anyone else back into Open? Edit: Assuming of course that you are interested in player to player interactions at all - if not then there is no reason to not be in Solo :)
Click to expand...

The premise is flawed, so goes the solution. A waste of time thread.
 

Marra Morgan

Marra Morgan
CMDR Maymo said:
I just see absolutely no advantage or enhanced pleasure by playing in open. Other friendly CMDRS on Xbox are limited to quickly typing ‘07’ and they aren’t going to come and engage in the same activities as myself, if I want to chat to CMDR’s I just come here!

That just leaves unfriendly CMDRS, why would I actively press a button that let’s unfriendly people into my play experience?!? Why, why...?
Click to expand...

Horses for courses.

Some of us like the challenge, some don't.

Just choose your mode appropriately and there's no problem :)
 

ethelred

ethelred
Viking84 said:
Agreed, random killings will still be a thing, but they will be "expected" as you have strayed out of the safe zone of high security. As it stands random killings happen anywhere, even outside high security noob spawn stations - that is enough to scare anyone off into Solo permanently.

With these changes, if you decide to take on a mission to low sec, be prepared for highly engineered PvP'ers attacking you for no reason at all. Not perfect, but at least it becomes possible to avoid and prepare for. It would also allow for different CG's set in different systems - one guaranteeing PvP, another being pretty much PvE only due to an overwhelming security presence.
Click to expand...

Yep, all for this. I don't think ppl fundamentally opposed to ANY non-consensual combat would be convinced to play in Open and as it stands you pretty much can avoid random death and being killed, anywhere.

I don't want the chance to be offed completely removed, even from Hig Sec (like a potential filthy imperial pilot jumping into Fed areas to smash stuff up, until they are hounded out) but agree an exclusion zone of extreme and quick reaction around starter systems should be a thing (with correspondingly very low payouts for everything).
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Viking84 said:
For me these changes would make engineering worthwhile. At the moment if you engineer your ship for PvE usage it becomes overpowered, no NPC's can touch you. With my proposed changes engineering would be pretty much mandatory for going into Anarchy systems, at least the basics such as thrusters and shields. Much like other MMO's really, if you are a low level character you have to stay in the safer low level areas - once you level up you can expand your operations and face new challenges.
Click to expand...

rofl, happy fun in your hamster wheel then.
 

Screemonster

Screemonster
The thing that held me back from getting the game when it first came out was that they dropped the pure singleplayer mode, and in general I despise the push towards "put all players in the same pot" multiplayer in modern gaming. When I'm playing multiplayer games I'm doing it to chill out with some friends, not to get into an adversarial willy-waving match with some utter rando from somewhere on the internet.
 

swiftsure

swiftsure
drama said:
Set PvP rebuy at 0 and open will be crowded.
Click to expand...

A good point (although you also lose exploration data, bonds, bounties, cargo) - just look at how other games deal with world PVP - for example in WoW, dying to other players costs nothing but the inconvenience of re-spawning. There is still the tension of not knowing if you will be attacked, but without the excessive cost of death in ED which discourages participation in Open and PVP.

Cost is the reason I do not play in Open.
 

Viking84

Viking84
swiftsure said:
Cost is the reason I do not play in Open.
Click to expand...

For me, cost is certainly part of it, but it is the meaninglessness of it all that stings the most. Being pulled from supercruise in a high sec system and destroyed without any comms and with close to zero consequence for the attacker just feels wrong - immersion breaking if you will. Having the same thing happen in Anarchy, after being clearly told not to go there because it is dangerous, now that makes more sense :)
 

Stealthie

Stealthie
Main thing, IMO, is to create a balanced and plausible response to criminal behaviour in the game.

I still fly through systems and see cop ships cruising around and then arrive at my destination to find people are station-ganking with impunity.
There is just nothing in the way of a plausible response to criminal activity, and then there's a heap of "booby traps" laid on top of that called C&P, which consists of fines and bounties which serve as zero deterrent.

I'd love it if FDev really ramped things up so that there was a notable difference between different system states, so that law-abiding players could feel safe in high-sec systems and there'd be real trepidation at the thought of entering an anarchy, with all the appropriate benefits in each case.

Until cops ships provide an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour - both in terms of a first-response and in the pursuit and apprehension of criminals - anything else is just waffle.
 

Snarfbuckle

S
Stealthie said:
Main thing, IMO, is to create a balanced and plausible response to criminal behaviour in the game.

I still fly through systems and see cop ships cruising around and then arrive at my destination to find people are station-ganking with impunity.
There is just nothing in the way of a plausible response to criminal activity, and then there's a heap of "booby traps" laid on top of that called C&P, which consists of fines and bounties which serve as zero deterrent.

I'd love it if FDev really ramped things up so that there was a notable difference between different system states, so that law-abiding players could feel safe in high-sec systems and there'd be real trepidation at the thought of entering an anarchy, with all the appropriate benefits in each case.

Until cops ships provide an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour - both in terms of a first-response and in the pursuit and apprehension of criminals - anything else is just waffle.
Click to expand...

This.

I mean, when players can openly team gank arrivals in Shinrarta Dezhra with impunity, then something is wrong when the Federation of Pilots cannot even keep a system of law in their own space.

And then we have System Security...

- Anarchy = Anything goes
- Low Sec = Might be a police response, might not
- Med Sec = Moderate police response
- High Sec = Quick and merciless police response
- Sol, Achenar and Major power HQ including PP HQ = Godlike instant response
 

B1rdy

B1rdy
Viking84 said:
1. System Security. The security response in a high security system should be near instant and overwhelming. The defending ship should only have to be able to survive say 15 seconds before the attacker is swarmed by god-like system security ships and nuked to oblivion. Scale this progressively down to where low sec is more or less like medium sec is now, and anarchy is just that, anarchy.
Click to expand...
Security response should be scaled based on the type infraction, faction reputation of the infractor, as well as bounty and fines, besides the security state of a system. Imagine this a bit like in GTA mixed with Freelancer's faction reputation system (i.e. if you are hostile, you will be shot at in any case).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom