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

[Jockey79]

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....

There is no real need to add a "Hardcore Mode" as people can make a group and self delete on death, yet people have been asking for one since back in the DDA.

If someone wants to lock themselves in to open, then let them - it won't change how you play, it wont change how I play and it keeps a subset of the player base happy.

As for the badge of honour, well if we are agaisnt those we'd better ban all forum sig files then - as it must be offensive to someone that I proudly proclaim the Mobius membership. And it must be offensive that CORE members show their support and so on. So all sigs will have to go

Honestly, if someone locking themselves in to a mode is a problem - that is a half way step towards Hardcore mode, if self locked open is a problem then Hardcore must be a nightmare

My theory is;

If it helps players, without hurting or hindering others - then let it be.

So unless I've missed how this self locking to open mode will harm/ hinder me or others in anyway, I'm confused to the problem.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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 is no "honour" or "shame" attached to which mode(s) any player plays the game in - there is no "right" way to play the game, in the opinion of DBOBE.

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.

In what way can some players not play the game how they want to? Ah, I see where you've gone with this - it's not about how the player themself plays, it's about how other players play.... Being encouraged to "play the game how you want to" does not allow any player to tell others how to play the game.

If Frontier had wanted to create a competitive adversarial game then I would expect that there would either only have been an Open mode or there would have been no mode switching core feature. They did not choose to design the game that way, as evidenced by the three game modes and the ability of each and every player to select which game mode thy want to play in on a session-by-session basis.

 

[why fi at all]

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

i am disappointed that i can't give you another +1 rep.

i am also thinking that this way of dealing with griefers is a not so subtle brilliance on the part of he devs.

to quote Majinvash
its working as intended

look at the level of frustration with not finding soft targets.

and yet the soft targets that want to be sociable and play together can do so in group.

i am in mobius, and i rarely see anyone.

however the game is still rather new.

it will take a while for the population to build up in this game just as it did in eve.

by this time in EVE we were just barely getting to 5K max players at one time, and that would only last a few seconds.

then they dumned down the entry difficulty curve.
fools showed up.

of the things i like most about eve it is their commitment to having a sandbox that they as devs will not interfere with.
freedom of action, freedom of choice. freedom to be who you want to be. wonderful idea.
of the things i dislike most about eve it is their commitment to having a sandbox that they as devs will not interfere with.
freedom of action, freedom of choice. freedom to be who you want to be. still a wonderful idea. however there are people that want to be griefers.
in the single universe mode it would have required the devs to go back on their policy of non interference to make any attempt to quell greifers.
i must say i respect them for their choice, however it kicked me out of the game.

but here, in this game, there is an attempt to deal with the fact that some people will spread chaos just as a matter of their irresistible voices in their head.
[oops i honestly did try to not be derogatory, but i was over powered by . .. by . . .. ahhh. . . the voices].

and so we have this open/group/solo arrangement from the beginning, and does not to be implemented later.

i think it's great, and hope that it sets an example for other MMO's.
and yes this IS an MMO, it's just in it's early stages.

to those people [some decent folk and then there is {Majinvash}] saying there are not enough people in open for decent play, i would say that it is too early in the game to expect much of a population anywhere.

"if you build it they will come" they just won't arrive all on the same bus.

give it time.
you will get what you want, just not right this moment.

 

[chagnampra]

Was just interdicted by a pirate CMDR. Sure, he wanted to rob me, but could see I had very little on me (I was smuggling at the time in an Adder) - so he let me go. I made sure I co-operated with his demand to cut engines and submit to a scan. I was prepared to be blown away by a psycho, but it was refreshing to meet someone reasonable in Open!

Basically, I have been dipping my toe into the waters of Open play recently and fully intend to persist with it, no matter what. Mind you, I am flying lower value ships right now, just in case. Plus, if I have had a rough day at work and just don't want the aggro, I may switch to Möbius.

Still, I am getting something from Open that I have somehow lost from other game modes: that element of danger and uncertainty. Even though the AI has recently been improved, NPCs are generally predictable, whereas human CMDRs are not.

So, despite becoming a little bit too comfortable with E: D (having played it for the best part of a year, from beta onewards), I am now looking to go outside my comfort zone. Looking forward to seeing more CMDRs out in the black...

 

[Robert Maynard]

If it helps players, without hurting or hindering others - then let it be.

So unless I've missed how this self locking to open mode will harm/ hinder me or others in anyway, I'm confused to the problem.

If the Open-Only flag were to be visible to all other players, the lack of such a flag would create a new "difference" between those who choose to lock themselves in to one mode and those who do not.

 

[Red Fox Four]

If you are griefing players in Open (ie killing them for no purpose other than being able to kill them) and then come to forums to argue that there is no griefing in the game... then you are just as spineless outside the game as you are inside the game. And that is saying quite a bit.

Why not just grow a pair of real balls and admit to the fact that you are griefing and just killing players for no reason?

Reading statements by, presumably, grown men where they try to present themselves as anything but a griefer when they kill for no reasons is simply amusing and makes me wonder if they are men or mice since they apparently lack the manhood to stand by their own actions and call it what we all know it is.

And no, "Look mom, I am a psychotic killer so I kill people" roleplaying is no reason since the ONLY time you do that roleplay is when you blow up a ship... why are you not also presenting yourself as a psychotic killer everytime you open comms with someone and everytime you fly into a station?

Stop making girlish excuses, be a g'damn man and present yourself as what you are based on what your actions have already stated.

 

[why fi at all]

Was just interdicted by a pirate CMDR. Sure, he wanted to rob me, but could see I had very little on me (I was smuggling at the time in an Adder) - so he let me go. I made sure I co-operated with his demand to cut engines and submit to a scan. I was prepared to be blown away by a psycho, but it was refreshing to meet someone reasonable in Open!

Basically, I have been dipping my toe into the waters of Open play recently and fully intend to persist with it, no matter what. Mind you, I am flying lower value ships right now, just in case. Plus, if I have had a rough day at work and just don't want the aggro, I may switch to Möbius.

Still, I am getting something from Open that I have somehow lost from other game modes: that element of danger and uncertainty. Even though the AI has recently been improved, NPCs are generally predictable, whereas human CMDRs are not.

So, despite becoming a little bit too comfortable with E: D (having played it for the best part of a year, from beta onewards), I am now looking to go outside my comfort zone. Looking forward to seeing more CMDRs out in the black...

i am going to guess that this kind of encounter happens allot more than we give credit for.
in my opinion this is what i would call a "proper" pirate encounter.
it does happen, and is part of the game world.

there are people that call themselves pirates, yet they are not.
the ones i am thinking of have no interest in your cargo and only want to destroy the time you have spent to put together the ship you WERE flying.
they are not attacking your personality "in the game". they are attacking "you the player at the keyboard outside of the game".
with them it is personal. it's a game they play using "the game" to play it on real people, not some avatar in the game.

thankfully they are rare, and the three mode system will keep it that way.

and the pirate that you met, has a place in the game and is welcome here, at least by me.

 

[Cody]

open = real player = real role play / sandbox

That is a load of old codswallop! Jeez!

- - - Updated - - -

I used the badge of honour...

Badge of honour? I doubt you even know the meaning of the term!

- - - Updated - - -

A lot of cobblers around this morning!

 

[Snarfbuckle]

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.

I completely agree to that it is a valid CHOICE - But should not ALL choices have consequences?

-If I take an Eagle and attack an Anaconda I CHOOSE to get my ass handed to me
-If I trade hundreds of tonnes in my T9 of rares in open and try to run from a pirate after im interdicted I CHOOSE to get blown up.
-If I attack law enforcement I get a fine, and attacked
-If I attack a non-wanted CMDR or NPC I get fined
-If I CHOOSE to interdict a CMDR and blow him up just for s**t and giggles I can do that.

The first four has negative consequences that can actually remove FUN from an experience.
The last one has almost no consequences.

They try to create a living breathing universe so why are the laws inside the game so arbitrary and strange?

6K for murder
DEATH for loitering
Piracy interdiction is legal

Im all for PvP and a free gamestyle but a proper balance of consequences should exist.

A complete revision needs to be made for laws and punishment of crimes.

If I start shootin up everyone I see just because I can a certain reputation for being a complete mad hatter should apply and bounties for that mad hatter should pop up everywhere because shooting up places then to draw law enforcement (just look at school shootings, bombings in the real world for a comparison)

Yes, I want to be wanted in Elite dammit. Not just one system, but EVERYWHERE that faction has jurisdiction and not just forgotten after 7 days.

After all, it's not likee Im gonna PAY the fines and bounties - Im not mad...am I?

And I really dont understand those players who dont care who they blow up, if they dont care who they shoot, why would they care if they rack up a little negative reputation and a bounty?

A proposal:

-Bounty timer is reset whenever a new crime is committed and the bounty is increased by the new crime.
-Having a bounty on your head is just like having unclaimed bounties on others - they only expire if you DIE.
-Killing ANY non-wanted ship (CMDR or NPC) adds a 1% bounty based on BASE ship cost.
-A Fer-De-Lance kill would be 51000 credit bounty
-An Eagle would be 45 credit bounty

- - - Updated - - -

and the pirate that you met, has a place in the game and is welcome here, at least by me.

I agree.

Pirates are part of the game, but both pirates and other players need better tools to both promote crimes AND punish them properly.

 

[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.

Ah Mobius

You have 10K of members.. Wow! You have won the game it seems!

So we got what…

600000 or so registered ED Players ( We know it’s much lower than that and probably dropping daily but as discussed before no one is going to confirm or deny )

You interact with ( based on 600k ) 0.017% of the player base in your gated community.

I know that Mobius is pretty empty most days, I have been told so by players I know who have access. ( It’s possible I am in there currently with another profile. )

If you take out the players that are in solo or other private servers, which you cannot interact with either.
I am pretty sure that I have a much bigger number of players to interact with, in anyway shape or form I choose.

Player killing is just one of my many skills.

I am sorry you are so jaded by Open that all you can see is the ganks ( which are A LOT of fun, I will admit ) but Open is where a vast majority of player generated content could and would be produced by its very nature. It is open to anyone. IF the game was changed just ever so slightly to do so, but it is shouted down by NO EVE! * Flaming pitch forks a waving * ( Never played EVE but it has some great ideas to steal )

So while I think your missing out on a lot of variety, you choose to play your mode.

But the PVP player is on the rise, FD are seeing to that with CQC and console based ports. I expect it’s going to be short lived on console and cost them a lot in wasted time and programing but hey.

PVP Players want more variety and content. Content that we can work together to achieve that doesn’t feel flat and valueless.
The reason we target players for our version of fun is that we find AI easy and unchallenging ( No I am not calling you all noobs, I am just staying why we do it )
Even if that human target is a T6, it’s still more of a challenge than an AI T6 and there is a chance of interaction and booty. Garr!

There is only so long you can sit in a RES site and farm the same few ships or a CZ …. Farming the same few ships.

Take out the grind of trading/PP undermining/reinforcing, mining and I guess to a degree Exploring.

You are left with an empty game that is screaming for player interaction and content, whether you can hear them or not.

It might be working as intended… Doesn’t mean that if it carries blindly on, it’s going to succeed.

Seeing as ALL the modes are cut down version of Open ( Yes they are, it’s the Open universe with different match making settings )
Open needs to be the mode that all plans are concentrated on and then for players that want to get involved either have to play in open or just be happy with what is doable in Private and Solo.

For ED to survive 10 years, its eventually have to go that route. Probably kicking and screaming.
It cannot in its current state hope to maintain interest of its player group, if it is crippling its self to be jack of all traders/master of none.

Especially if a competitor comes out that offers even a smidge more.
The competition might not have the pedigree but then Apple didn’t when it took the market away from Nokia.

Majinvash

 

[Jockey79]

If the Open-Only flag were to be visible to all other players, the lack of such a flag would create a new "difference" between those who choose to lock themselves in to one mode and those who do not.

And I can fly with a Merc paint and Decal in Open mode, separating myself from those who bought the game from January 2015 onward by showing off something they can no longer get even if they want it.
So backers should not be able to make themselves visible to others then? As it creates differences in the player base, ie those who helped bring the game to life and those who just bought it after release.

I'd better stop using my shop bought paints as well, it may hurt the feelings of people who are unable to spend money in the cash shop for custom paints. And how common is a white Type 9?
Showing off that I paid more then the default cost of the game must be a right kick in the teeth for some folks.

Honestly, if the only bonus to self locking in open is a visual difference and nothing else - there is no reason to oppose it.

My ships;

Sidey with merc paint and merc decal
Hauler, yellow with trailblazer decals on the wing tips and "broker" on the front
Viper, grey with blue "V" stripe and "master" combat decals
Cobra with black/white urban camouflage and "master" combat decals
Asp with "White Apollo" paint, no decals
T9 with "Tactical White" paint and "broker" decals

Now tell me how common those ships are, because if looking slightly different to the masses is an outrage, you* have way bigger problems than what people are up to in game.

So as long as the only "bonus" (even if you can it that) to self locking to open mode is a visual one - let them be, it keeps folks happy.
Just like an Anaconda paint would keep folks happy.... if we ever get one

[you* = not you personally, but anyone who feels a subset of players looking "different" is a problem. So a sweeping generalization]

 

[CMDR Malkov]

There is no "honour" or "shame" attached to which mode(s) any player plays the game in - there is no "right" way to play the game, in the opinion of DBOBE.

Are you suggesting I said or implied otherwise? This is your interpretation so please don't imply it's mine just because I used a particular phrase in an entirely different context.

Some respect people who choose to play in self-imposed ironman mode but that doesn't imply shame for anybody who doesn't.
Some would see the "Murderer" tag as shameful.
Some see hopping to solo as shameful or cowardly. Some see it as a perfectly valid choice.
Are you suggesting we try to enforce on people how to think and make moral judgments based on your own standards?

Ah, I see where you've gone with this - it's not about how the player themself plays, it's about how other players play.... Being encouraged to "play the game how you want to" does not allow any player to tell others how to play the game.

No idea what you even mean by this as it seems wholly irrelevant to anything I said.
Nobody is "allowing any player to tell others how to play the game", they would be choosing. It's about more choice, not less.

If Frontier had wanted to create a competitive adversarial game then I would expect that there would either only have been an Open mode or there would have been no mode switching core feature. They did not choose to design the game that way, as evidenced by the three game modes and the ability of each and every player to select which game mode thy want to play in on a session-by-session basis.

You can talk all you like about what you think Frontier wanted and the core features. My suggestion doesn't affect this unless you regard voluntarily choosing to give up the "session-by-session" basis as somehow undermining it. If so then please provide your reasoning for us all to discuss.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

For ED to survive 10 years, its eventually have to go that route. Probably kicking and screaming.
It cannot in its current state hope to maintain interest of its player group, if it is crippling its self to be jack of all traders/master of none.

Majinvash

If they want me to play in open they have to fix the TECHNICAL issues first.

-Peer-to-Peer Architecture means I can never be sure that the other players i face are not cheating (or they me)
-Instancing needs fixing because in this day and age we should at least be able to face of 32 vs 32 players in a "space" with hardly any graphics.
-Grouping and organisations needs to be refined properly.
-Crimes and punishment need to be updated*
-Ability to declare war on a faction (To remove risk or legal reprisal)

*The reason i want crimes and punishment is not to discourage PvP but if they want to simulate a universe with people in it as opposed to a PvP arena where people just fly around shooting each other then the game should have that.

Shooting people for fun should be a choice but also be illegal in civilized space unless there is war going on. After all, if I went and started shooting people outside of a mall when they exit the garage the cops would hunt me across the continent and I would be on the FBI's most wanted for YEARS.

Elite is called DANGEROUS but except for a majority of VICTIMS of those players who act like bullies for fun (which I do not deny them) there is nothing dangerous.

ALL things we do in Elite should be DANGEROUS and as it stands, it is not.

EDIT: just to compare it with THE PvP space game of EVE. Trying to do illegal stuff in any civilized area of that game is instant death when attacking players.

We should not have THAT, but we should have DANGER connected with assaulting players or commiting CRIMES.

 

[Jockey79]

........
It might be working as intended… Doesn’t mean that if it carries blindly on, it’s going to succeed.

Seeing as ALL the modes are cut down version of Open ( Yes they are, it’s the Open universe with different match making settings )
Open needs to be the mode that all plans are concentrated on and then for players that want to get involved either have to play in open or just be happy with what is doable in Private and Solo.

For ED to survive 10 years, its eventually have to go that route. Probably kicking and screaming.
......

To your points I've left;

There is nothing to say the game with fail either - proclaiming either way at this point is just plain stupidity.

The modes are not "cut down versions of open" at all. The modes are just a setting placed on top of the Universe as a whole - the 1 BGS we all keep talking about

And, no. People said for STO to survive it'd have to go the PvP route - they totally killed any decent PvP in it - it grew stronger.
(Pay to Win however, is killing it off. Each time they update the store with new items more people get annoyed)

Sorry, but PvP players make a lot of noise and strut and chest thump. It does not help and it reinforces the PvE players idea of you all being either spotty teens or that fat basement guy from South Park.
If you drop the bravado and chest thumping, stop proclaiming your some sort of fortune teller and quit with the insults, you have made some good points that get ignored - because of the way you present your posts with all that baggage.

 

[Janichsan]

-Instancing needs fixing because in this day and age we should at least be able to face of 32 vs 32 players in a "space" with hardly any graphics.

In case you haven't heard that yet: graphics isn't the issue. The involved physics is. Flight and thrust vectors of 64 players, plus the flight paths of in the worst case hundreds of bullets and missiles – good luck finding enough players with a network connection fast enough to handle the necessary data exchange to keep track of all that stuff.

 

[Jockey79]

I completely agree to that it is a valid CHOICE - But should not ALL choices have consequences?

Yes, they should. And right now, there is none - not really, not anything meaningful.

Some nice ideas you've put forward, however, not really mode related - so I'm leaving it at this

(psst, start a thread )

 

[Majinvash]

If they want me to play in open they have to fix the TECHNICAL issues first.

-Peer-to-Peer Architecture means I can never be sure that the other players i face are not cheating (or they me)
-Instancing needs fixing because in this day and age we should at least be able to face of 32 vs 32 players in a "space" with hardly any graphics.
-Grouping and organisations needs to be refined properly.
-Crimes and punishment need to be updated*
-Ability to declare war on a faction (To remove risk or legal reprisal)

*The reason i want crimes and punishment is not to discourage PvP but if they want to simulate a universe with people in it as opposed to a PvP arena where people just fly around shooting each other then the game should have that.

Shooting people for fun should be a choice but also be illegal in civilized space unless there is war going on. After all, if I went and started shooting people outside of a mall when they exit the garage the cops would hunt me across the continent and I would be on the FBI's most wanted for YEARS.

Elite is called DANGEROUS but except for a majority of VICTIMS of those players who act like bullies for fun (which I do not deny them) there is nothing dangerous.

ALL things we do in Elite should be DANGEROUS and as it stands, it is not.

EDIT: just to compare it with THE PvP space game of EVE. Trying to do illegal stuff in any civilized area of that game is instant death when attacking players.

We should not have THAT, but we should have DANGER connected with assaulting players or commiting CRIMES.

100% Agree. I have actually posted much of what you have just said before in various other threads.

Majinvash

 

[Snarfbuckle]

(psst, start a thread )

Hmmm...think I did, or in similar threads and everyonee who likes to shoot people says the game is working as intended.

Im still surprised I dont get killed for littering outside a station but killed if I stand still for too long.

Also, should not the killing of a law enforcement ship make the cops EVERYWHERE hunt you down? Nope, just 6k bounty.

 

[Majinvash]

To your points I've left;

There is nothing to say the game with fail either - proclaiming either way at this point is just plain stupidity.

The modes are not "cut down versions of open" at all. The modes are just a setting placed on top of the Universe as a whole - the 1 BGS we all keep talking about

And, no. People said for STO to survive it'd have to go the PvP route - they totally killed any decent PvP in it - it grew stronger.
(Pay to Win however, is killing it off. Each time they update the store with new items more people get annoyed)

Sorry, but PvP players make a lot of noise and strut and chest thump. It does not help and it reinforces the PvE players idea of you all being either spotty teens or that fat basement guy from South Park.
If you drop the bravado and chest thumping, stop proclaiming your some sort of fortune teller and quit with the insults, you have made some good points that get ignored - because of the way you present your posts with all that baggage.

Your nievity is shocking

You could package a turd with a star trek logo and it would sell on brand strength alone.

There have been some tragically awful starwars games, which are proof of that.

Sure the game in its current state with a few other ways to grind and some other shiny NPC's to shoot is going to make this game flourish.

Wake up

Majinvash

 

[Snarfbuckle]

In case you haven't heard that yet: graphics isn't the issue. The involved physics is. Flight and thrust vectors of 64 players, plus the flight paths of in the worst case hundreds of bullets and missiles – good luck finding enough players with a network connection fast enough to handle the necessary data exchange to keep track of all that stuff.

Im not so sure.

We DO have games dealing with that today and they manage fine. Yes, it's mostly ground based combat and they DO have bullet physics but at the same time, MOST ships in Elite use beams or other hitscan weapons.

So what info needs to be related.

64 players locations delivered to 64 players = 4096 messaages
64 players damage states to 64 players = 4096 messages
64 players actions to 64 players = 4096 messages
64 Players need information about artifacts in system = 64 messages

The above is not what the PLAYER needs, the above is what the SERVER would needs to handle.
A player would need the above from 64 players and 1 from system status = 64 X 4 +1 = 257 pieces of data
The current Peer-to-Peer solution makes a player essentially a server and sends information to every other player. That would be like having a server with severe hickup where information is delivered in random speeds depending on ping of the other party.

In the CURRENT system that wont work because our computers are forced to be the servers AND players.
If FD actually had good server solution of networked servers each handling a different aspect of the data it could be done - but that cost money.

Yes, additional messages woudl bee required the more ballistic weapons are used but hell, a 64 player battle in Battlefield or ARMA has more artifacts, bullets and crap going on between players than Elite will ever have.