Would this make you play Open more?

[Viking84]

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 (which still wastes time and is annoying compared to not being attacked) 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

 

[kpmop]

Some nice ideas esp #3 & #4 ... but you've not really said what's in it for people to "come back" to open.

...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"...

Generally you think "well that was an utter surprise, me in a PvE configured ship and them in a god-mode PvP ship - I thought that would have been much closer fight(!)".

Edit:* I do play in open, but generally not in the busy areas (I assume, because I rarely see other CMDRs).

 

[Macster698]

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?

I think it's more to do with how much of an engineer grind is required for PvP if you wanna do anything more than run that turns most players off, they just stick to PvE/exploration (most of the original backers wanted a sim)

 

[KillaALF]

I quite like those ideas and would very much like to see them implemented, but this would not change the fact that I have zero interest in playing in Open. I do play in PGs occasionally, but I only bought the game because of the availability of the Solo mode. So no, this would not have me play in Open more (or at all, which would be the more precise description in my case).

 

[Viking84]

Some nice ideas esp #3 & #4 ... but you've not really said what's in it for people to "come back" to open.

That is a good point Personally I like seeing other commanders flying around and chatting with randoms, it makes the galaxy feel more alive, and even in the original big Mobius group there just aren't as many players around as you find in Open. Getting as many people as possible into Open, without that resulting in them becoming cannon fodder for PvP engineered ships, would be great in my opinion.

Of course I fully respect that some commanders have no interest in the multiplayer aspects of this game at all, and for them this idea will make no difference. However for those who spend lots of time in PG's, Mobius or others, this might have some merit. I certainly know it would for me

 

[iSteel]

I fly in open only with small ships which re-buy value I can make back with one trade run with Python. Only way I would play fully in open with big ships would be to make the monetary loss of ship and cargo due to fellow CMDR much lower. If I can make back my lost credits with one trading run, I am good to go.

I do not mind if someone blows my ship, but I hate the lost time and effort it makes me to re-buy the ship and cargo lost. Cutter's re-buy is so high I would never want to fly it in open.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

I like and have always advertised the "System Security matters" approach.

Minor changes/suggestions :

- normal HighSec space shall still permit sting operations, provided they are executed swiftly and Attackers have zero or minimal low Notoriety (0 or 1)
-> however, Security is alerted already at the moment the Interdiction tether is established, explaining the swift reaction times

- Permit-locked HighSec space : more rigorous as you describe, maximum risk for any Attacker and sting Ops would require a potent Wing and accepting an extreme risk level
- Permit Systems shall react to repeated Murder Crimes by revoking the System Permit (Inbox Warnings, followed eventually by permit revoke at Notoriety X , X being defined by System Security)

- Reaction of System Authority to presence of Wanted Player in SuperCruise
-> Low Security sees Authority occasionally Interdicting Wanted Players (i.e. 10% chance per Minute w/ Notoriety Multiplier)
-> Medium Security sees Authority regularly Interdicting Wanted Players (i.e. 20% chance per Minute w/ Notoriety Multiplier)
-> High Security sees Authority often Interdicting Wanted Players (i.e. 30% chance per Minute w/ Notoriety Multiplier)
-> any Medium/High Security System sees Authority aggressively Interdicting any Player on the local Top 5 Bounty Board

C&P change :
- small Fines or minor offenses (stray shot / common accidents) shall not give Wanted Status nor require Anonymous Access, thus any such Fines not exceeding i.e. 2000 Cr don't cause any deep trouble

BUT : In order to provide a fair counterbalance, Anarchy Systems and their reactions to Clean guys seeking profits there IMHO must change as well :
-> Anarchy Systems sees Pirate or Mission-based NPCs often Interdicting Players when carrying Cargo or on a Mission (i.e. 30% chance per Minute w/ Cargo/Mission value Multiplier)
-> local Reputation with Controlling Anarchy acts as a negative Multiplier (i.e. Criminals having made it their Home System and holding Allied Rep will not have deep trouble in such Systems)
-> Notoriety shall act as a very distinct negative Multiplier ("local heroes" enjoy full home advantage and freedom of movement, regardless of Cargo carried or Missions)
-> if a Criminal with Allied Rep AND Notoriety is attacked there (i.e. PvP Bounty Hunters), local Freedom Fighters will join the fight to defend that Player

That way, both Clean guys and career Criminals shall have "Home Advantage" and System Security playing a key role.

Obviously, Profits (Commodities/Missions) would have to take the safety of System Security into effect, Anarchy Systems shall offer by far the highest Profits while High Security areas offer respectively lower profits.
Basically like Security being paid with heavy taxation (= lower profits), while Anarchy being entirely free from such restrictions (= max profits).

 

[Lunchmoney]

Would this entice anyone else back into Open?

Not me. Because PvP is not the reason I don't play in open.
I don't play in open because I'm an antisocial person and I don't like playing online games with people I don't know.


However I think your suggestions would make a better game. System security should make a difference.

 

[Arindor]

Although your proposals sound ok, imo, I don't like PvP because I find PvP behaviour puerile and childish, so it doesn't matter what FD throw at open to make it more palatable. However, I do enjoy games that offer co-op PvE but with ED, I play solo because of other reasons: no offline and internet woes, such as latency, instance loading times and rubber banding.

At the end of the day, there's absolutely nothing FD can implement which will make me play open. If ED became open only, myself (and presumably others) will find something else.

 

[Marra Morgan]

There's something in your theory I don't agree with, and therefore can't agree with the solutions either.

there is very little to do about this other than escaping (waste of time)

I don't think escaping is a waste of time.

You avoid rebuy, loss of cargo / merits / mission stuff. In my opinion, that's well worth the time spent escaping.

It's what I do when a dedicated combat ship comes after my pirate ship. It's what I expect traders to do when I go after them.

As to making PvP a player choice in Open - that seems redundant. By choosing Open, you're consenting to whatever goes within the rules of the game, including the chance of encountering players with deadlier ships than yours. If that's not your cup of tea, Private Groups and Solo are perfectly valid options.

 

[Marra Morgan]

I like and have always advertised the "System Security matters" approach.

Minor changes/suggestions :

- normal HighSec space shall still permit sting operations, provided they are executed swiftly and Attackers have zero or minimal low Notoriety (0 or 1)
-> however, Security is alerted already at the moment the Interdiction tether is established, explaining the swift reaction times

- Permit-locked HighSec space : more rigorous as you describe, maximum risk for any Attacker and sting Ops would require a potent Wing and accepting an extreme risk level
- Permit Systems shall react to repeated Murder Crimes by revoking the System Permit (Inbox Warnings, followed eventually by permit revoke at Notoriety X , X being defined by System Security)

- Reaction of System Authority to presence of Wanted Player in SuperCruise
-> Low Security sees Authority occasionally Interdicting Wanted Players (i.e. 10% chance per Minute w/ Notoriety Multiplier)
-> Medium Security sees Authority regularly Interdicting Wanted Players (i.e. 20% chance per Minute w/ Notoriety Multiplier)
-> High Security sees Authority often Interdicting Wanted Players (i.e. 30% chance per Minute w/ Notoriety Multiplier)
-> any Medium/High Security System sees Authority aggressively Interdicting any Player on the local Top 5 Bounty Board

C&P change :
- small Fines or minor offenses (stray shot / common accidents) shall not give Wanted Status nor require Anonymous Access, thus any such Fines not exceeding i.e. 2000 Cr don't cause any deep trouble

BUT : In order to provide a fair counterbalance, Anarchy Systems and their reactions to Clean guys seeking profits there IMHO must change as well :
-> Anarchy Systems sees Pirate or Mission-based NPCs often Interdicting Players when carrying Cargo or on a Mission (i.e. 30% chance per Minute w/ Cargo/Mission value Multiplier)
-> local Reputation with Controlling Anarchy acts as a negative Multiplier (i.e. Criminals having made it their Home System and holding Allied Rep will not have deep trouble in such Systems)
-> Notoriety shall act as a very distinct negative Multiplier ("local heroes" enjoy full home advantage and full freedom or movement, regardless of Cargo carried or Missions)
-> if a Criminal with Allied Rep AND Notoriety is attacked there (i.e. PvP Bounty Hunters), local Freedom Fighters will join the fight to defend that Player

That way, both Clean guys and career Criminals shall have "Home Advantage" and System Security playing a key role.

Obviously, Profits (Commodities/Missions) would have to take the safety of System Security into effect, Anarchy Systems shall offer by far the highest Profits while High Security areas offer respectively lower profits.
Basically like Security being paid with heavy taxation (= lower profits), while Anarchy being entirely free from such restrictions (= max profits).

I do like these

 

[Ethaidan]

No, but only because I always play in open already.

However, from a game design and living universe perspective, the premise (if not the details) of both the OP and post #7, have always seemed pretty bloody obvious - and the lack of this basic infrastructure incredibly confusing/disappointing.

 

[verminstar]

The pvp itself is fine, even when its totally unexpected...what turns me off personally is the toxic attitudes behind it. If pvp was ddne fer role play purposes, Id be absolutely fine with that and play along with genuine pirates, part of the experience.

Unfortunately, the reality isnt quite as sugar coated and bona fide role players are as rare as hens teeth. I play in open most of the time but always switch to solo in busy areas and CG...just not worth it unless theres some incentive to sit and listen to their drivelling childish taunting. No incentive to put up with that...solo it is.

Ye wanna fix open? Fix the toxicity and that fixes open...anything else is just a bandaid ^

 

[Raino]

No, but only because I always play in open already.

this

 

[Brrokk]

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?

I like these ideas but I don't think they match the thread title. They would give more meaning to system states, but there's nothing in them to make anyone rethink their choice of mode.

 

[Arindor]

The pvp itself is fine, even when its totally unexpected...what turns me off personally is the toxic attitudes behind it. If pvp was ddne fer role play purposes, Id be absolutely fine with that and play along with genuine pirates, part of the experience.

Unfortunately, the reality isnt quite as sugar coated and bona fide role players are as rare as hens teeth. I play in open most of the time but always switch to solo in busy areas and CG...just not worth it unless theres some incentive to sit and listen to their drivelling childish taunting. No incentive to put up with that...solo it is.

Ye wanna fix open? Fix the toxicity and that fixes open...anything else is just a bandaid ^

I thought PvP'ers hide behind RP reasons to justify their antisocial online gaming behaviour. Well, that's how I've always seen it!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

(most of the original backers wanted a sim)

That's a bit of a bold statement. I'm not sure how much of a sim i wanted. I just wanted the next Elite with the ability to go it alone or coop. PvP is pretty meh for me in this sort of game. Other games do PvP much much better.

So there is really no reason for me to go into open, no matter what incentives are given or how mechanics are changed. I just want to fly a spaceship, preferrably with a few beers.

 

[Arindor]

That's a bit of a bold statement. I'm not sure how much of a sim i wanted. I just wanted the next Elite with the ability to go it alone or coop. PvP is pretty meh for me in this sort of game. Other games do PvP much much better.

So there is really no reason for me to go into open, no matter what incentives are given or how mechanics are changed. I just want to fly a spaceship, preferrably with a few beers.

Seconded.

 

[verminstar]

I thought PvP'ers hide behind RP reasons to justify their antisocial online gaming behaviour. Well, that's how I've always seen it!

Some of them do...like the two ¨pirates¨ I met...went through all the motions, dropped 2t of cargo played along...then they killed me anyway laughing and calling me a noob sucker fer playing along...

Consequences mean that I never play along to pirates anymore, genuine or not...Ill suicide before giving them an ounce or Ill make them destroy me. Ive suicided twice in a cutter already...its not an idle threat and as things stand now, Im only still in open by a thread...very close to just moving back to solo if I gotta listen to any more of that inane childishness they seem to think is funny when really its just immature and pathetically sad ^

 

[Bob McBobblehead]

There are a few that need done for me to play full time in open.

Fix the blue tunnel and ships skipping across the the screen problem.
As PvE player I would require an option to enable and disable PvP on the main menu as I'm not interested in fighting other cmdrs.