Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

[Robert Maynard]

OK, here is another quick thought.

OPEN ONLY OPTION

How about the option to flag your character as "Open Only"? Once you make this choice only the Open option is available to you.
While the appeal of this might be limited it could provide some interesting opportunities that aren't workable with the current modes.
These are the most obvious that spring to mind:

1) Bounty system
Player kills by Open Only players would result in a murder tag and a separate (very large) bounty that cannot be removed except by being claimed by another Open Only player. This would add a little more consequence to murdering another player and also make player bounty hunting more viable, as they would not be able to remove it or hide in solo. The tag and bounty would apply if you kill anybody who is not already tagged as a murderer.

2) Most Wanted List
Basically a list of the biggest murderers in game, ordered by current murder bounty. Caters both to those who crave infamy and those seeking to bring them to justice.

Why would players who play in more than one game mode be denied the opportunity to collect on the bounty held by the Open-Only player? It is unlikely that such a bounty would be gained solely from attacking other Open-Only players.

Restricting those who destroy other players to Open play only for a period of time was discussed in the DDF - sadly it has not been implemented.

No, it won't solve this as people want to be free to switch modes. It is not intended as a way to eliminate cowards/griefers etc.

It's aimed more at the people who pretty much only log into Open anyway.
It is a badge of honour if you like for those who WANT to engage in adversarial play and want to do so against similar-minded players.

Likening the "Open-Only" flag that you propose to a "badge of honour" is rather offensive to those who choose to play in more than just Open (for whatever reason), is it not?

It would probably be as easy for Frontier to create an Open-Only mode where players can be guaranteed not to meet any of those types of players....

 

[DarkseeD]

Whine Whine Whine

Cry those tears

You seem to be the only one here doing the above

 

[Janichsan]

Likening the "Open-Only" flag that you propose to a "badge of honour" is rather offensive to those who choose to play in more than just Open (for whatever reason), is it not?

Oh, that's a new one for Cody's list: dishonourable.

 

[Majinvash]

some people want the devs to bring people into open, maybe by force.
some people are not interested in player interaction, and will NOT be coxed into open.
some people are out of open because they are not interested in being someone eases non-consensual soft target, over and over and over again.
some people are out of open because there are too many people that have no interest in the game and only in interrupting the enjoyment of other people.


some people say that open is a wasteland where there are none to very few players.

i mistakenly identified another person in this thread as majinvash.
now i will tell majinvash what i told the other person by mistake.

maybe the reason you find so few people in open is because you have won the game.
the game is not winnable, but you have won it anyway.


you are the top of the heap.
the greatest.
the most magnificent.
you have become the greatest killer of other players.
and the the match maker has nobody of your skill level to match you with in your instance.
and so you see all players of your kill level.
none.

except for very few random encounters with unlucky victims, you don't get anyone with you.

you're the winner of Elite Dangerous. how does it feel?

It feels pretty freaking great. When is my parade?

But as usual you lot snipped and grabbed bits to cry about rather than the context of the post.

The post wasn't about Open vs Solo or even PVP.

It was about how players who don't WANT to play in OPEN are the ones you scream the loudest when someone suggests something for OPEN that might be a lot of fun for OPEN! All because it MIGHT effect them playing in their SOLO game.

Someone whined about how player controlled stations would be a bad idea or unfair for solo..
So what.. YOU ARE PLAYING IN SOLO!
Why do you care what other players are doing?

So snip away, grab the bits that let you continue this thread.

Majinvash

 

[Mouse]

It feels pretty freaking great. When is my parade?

But as usual you lot snipped and grabbed bits to cry about rather than the context of the post.

The post wasn't about Open vs Solo or even PVP.

It was about how players who don't WANT to play in OPEN are the ones you scream the loudest when someone suggests something for OPEN that might be a lot of fun for OPEN! All because it MIGHT effect them playing in their SOLO game.

Someone whined about how player controlled stations would be a bad idea or unfair for solo..
So what.. YOU ARE PLAYING IN SOLO!
Why do you care what other players are doing?

So snip away, grab the bits that let you continue this thread.

Majinvash

If you read the thread you'd see that what you claim is FALSE. Because people who play solo have been helping to look at how to make Open more enjoyable for those who want interaction, while at the same time looking to see how to keep the balance. Again you ignore the major factor in that many who tried open left because they were griefed. You want Open to be more enjoyable for people. Eliminate the greifers. But that catches in your throat because that would mean YOU would not be playing the game.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So snip away, grab the bits that let you continue this thread.

Majinvash

You're very kind Lets see ..

you lot snipped and grabbed bits to cry about

Someone whined about how player controlled stations would be a bad idea or unfair for solo

View attachment 50108

 

[Daffan]

see my sig

or give open incentive

open = real player = real role play / sandbox

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Saw sig. Would not read again.

 

[Mouse]

see my sig

or give open incentive

open = real player = real role play / sandbox

Oh your only a "real" player if you play in open? how stupid is that? I guess all the rest of us are "imaginary". Change the attitude of some of those in open and that will be the only incentive you will need to get more people in open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

see my sig

or give open incentive

open = real player = real role play / sandbox

As recently as E3 2015, DBOBE is recorded as saying that there are no plans to separate the modes - the shared galaxy state for all modes and now all platforms would seem to be a core feature of the game that Frontier are not going to change.

 

[Janichsan]

open = real player = real role play / sandbox

Another one for Cody's list: solo = no real players.

 

[Majinvash]

If you read the thread you'd see that what you claim is FALSE. Because people who play solo have been helping to look at how to make Open more enjoyable for those who want interaction, while at the same time looking to see how to keep the balance. Again you ignore the major factor in that many who tried open left because they were griefed. You want Open to be more enjoyable for people. Eliminate the greifers. But that catches in your throat because that would mean YOU would not be playing the game.

Griefers don't exist.

Its working as intended

Don't force me to play your way.



Majinvash

 

[Mouse]

+

Griefers don't exist.

Its working as intended

Don't force me to play your way.



Majinvash

Griefers do exist, just as pirates do exist. What... were the people who tried open and just blown to smitherings by someone way more powerful than them just for giggles imaging that they were pulverized?

But you are right. The game is working as intended, and I am in no way forcing you to play my way. I wouldn't force anyone to play a certain way, BUT...

You want to play YOUR way vs. You want more people in Open, you need to make a choice. IF you want to continue to play your way than you have no right to gripe about open being emptly mainly because it is due to you playstyle. You made your bed and now you get to lay in it.

By your own admission and signature Your the PKer. As it was said.. you won the game, you get to stop near a star and mark your territory on it.. and wonder why your so alone.

Have fun. I will continue to fly and interact with people who don't get their jollies by screwing others over then complaining that no one will play with them anymore.


Enjoy your empty kingdom, I enjoy 10000 other commanders flying around and interacting with me when we meet or chat. I already know my bed and am going to go sleep in it.

 

[CMDR Malkov]

Why would players who play in more than one game mode be denied the opportunity to collect on the bounty held by the Open-Only player? It is unlikely that such a bounty would be gained solely from attacking other Open-Only players.

Restricting those who destroy other players to Open play only for a period of time was discussed in the DDF - sadly it has not been implemented.



Likening the "Open-Only" flag that you propose to a "badge of honour" is rather offensive to those who choose to play in more than just Open (for whatever reason), is it not?

It would probably be as easy for Frontier to create an Open-Only mode where players can be guaranteed not to meet any of those types of players....

No I don't see how it is offensive and nobody is denied anything - it's a choice. Existing bounties in Open would still apply but I don't see that allowing all open players to claim the murder bounty would be a big problem anyway.

No it wouldn't be easier to create an Open-Only mode and that would clearly not be the same.

One of the things that spoils open play at the moment is the lack of repercussion. Yes it's a choice to be able to switch back to solo to avoid this but I am suggesting a choice to lock yourself. You are basically saying that what ever actions I take in game I am here, where you can find me, to thank me or stop me or join me or take revenge.

I used the badge of honour term because it's a voluntary choice which would make many aspects of the game harder. If you trade to support your pvp you would now have to do this open, if you liked to swap to solo for PP stuff you would now have to do this in Open. I think that choice DOES deserve some respect so why call it offensive?

 

[Jockey79]

Griefers don't exist.

Its working as intended

Don't force me to play your way.



Majinvash

To be fair, DBOBE did say that playing the nut job killer is a valid game choice (I paraphrase), so this is right technically.
Exploiters are scum, I think we all agree on that and they do more harm than good to the game.
But as far as open mode goes, by rights there is no such thing as griefing due to open mode allowing any style of game play and FD supporting that.

Hence why when people scream and shout over being killed in open for no reason and no comms etc... I have little to no sympathy for them. It is part of the game, which even a small amount of research shows.

As long as people are free to mode jump, then griefing cannot really exist as people can just move to Mobius or Solo.
So, a good reason not to force open mode on people (to prevent griefing) and keep the current set up

 

[Robert Maynard]

No I don't see how it is offensive and nobody is denied anything - it's a choice. Existing bounties in Open would still apply but I don't see that allowing all open players to claim the murder bounty would be a big problem anyway.

No it wouldn't be easier to create an Open-Only mode and that would clearly not be the same.

One of the things that spoils open play at the moment is the lack of repercussion. Yes it's a choice to be able to switch back to solo to avoid this but I am suggesting a choice to lock yourself. You are basically saying that what ever actions I take in game I am here, where you can find me, to thank me or stop me or join me or take revenge.

I used the badge of honour term because it's a voluntary choice which would make many aspects of the game harder. If you trade to support your pvp you would now have to do this open, if you liked to swap to solo for PP stuff you would now have to do this in Open. I think that choice DOES deserve some respect so why call it offensive?

Linking "honour" to playing in Open only is pejorative to those who choose not to play in Open only. As DBOBE is recorded as holding the opinion that there is no "right" way to play the game, I doubt very much that an Open-Only "medal" would be implemented as it is divisive (i.e. it differentiates between players who mode switch and those who do not).

Some bits of Open are harder, where other players who oppose you are - most of Open is exactly the same as Solo, i.e. no other players.

It would seem that this is a variant of the Open-Only mode proposal but, realising that an Open-Only mode would probably be rather sparsely populated, it has been modified to exist within Open but with new medal for the self-proclaimed "honourable" players.

 

[CMDR Malkov]

Linking "honour" to playing in Open only is pejorative to those who choose not to play in Open only. As DBOBE is recorded as holding the opinion that there is no "right" way to play the game, I doubt very much that an Open-Only "medal" would be implemented as it is divisive (i.e. it differentiates between players who mode switch and those who do not).

Some bits of Open are harder, where other players who oppose you are - most of Open is exactly the same as Solo, i.e. no other players.

It would seem that this is a variant of the Open-Only mode proposal but, realising that an Open-Only mode would probably be rather sparsely populated, it has been modified to exist within Open but with new medal for the self-proclaimed "honourable" players.

There is no suggestion of a 'medal' on the table, Robert. It was a phrase I used to indicate WHY some people might choose this option.

You always find some reason why each suggestion is an outrage, or offensive or violates the core design but I don't find your reasons compelling. You seem to want to deny people a chance to "play their way", even if it really makes no difference to other players.

What do other players lose with this proposal?
All you seem to have really offered as an answer is that some people might have their feelings hurt. I play solo sometimes but I certainly wouldn't feel offended by this and I think anybody who does has some issues tbh.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There is no suggestion of a 'medal' on the table, Robert. It was a phrase I used to indicate WHY some people might choose this option.

You always find some reason why each suggestion is an outrage, or offensive or violates the core design but I don't find your reasons compelling. You seem to want to deny people a chance to "play their way", even if it really makes no difference to other players.

What do other players lose with this proposal?
All you seem to have really offered as an answer is that some people might have their feelings hurt. I play solo sometimes but I certainly wouldn't feel offended by this and I think anybody who does has some issues tbh.

So the commander's Open-Only flag would be unknown to all other commanders?

There's no need to add an Open-Only restrictive flag option to the game - each player is able to "play the game how you want to" already - if they choose to play in Open only then that is their choice. Why does specific content need to be added for those who do? Finding fault with proposals is a natural consequence of reading them....

 

[FuzzySpider]

Restricting those who destroy other players to Open play only for a period of time was discussed in the DDF - sadly it has not been implemented.

I don't think that's sad, I think players should always have the choice to play solo if they like.

What I'd like to see is bounties collected in Open should only count down while playing in Open. So if, for example, you get a bounty of 400,000 on your head for 24 hours, you should have to put in 24 hours in Open space before that bounty turns into a payable fine.

 

[CMDR Malkov]

So the commander's Open-Only flag would be unknown to all other commanders?

Why would it matter if it was? How would that stop you or anybody else from playing their way?
A tag would simply denote a choice. Any honour or shame associated with it would come from players opinions, not from the mechanics.

There's no need to add an Open-Only restrictive flag option to the game - each player is able to "play the game how you want to" already - if they choose to play in Open only then that is their choice. Why does specific content need to be added for those who do? Finding fault with proposals is a natural consequence of reading them....

No, some people are not able to play the game how they want at the moment, hence the suggestion.
Some people want to play a more adversarial game, where fights and skill and daring have real meaning and cannot be circumvented by jumping modes.
This was a suggestion that might add a little of that, for the players who want it, without damaging the experience of others.