Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jockey79]

....the statement you made is a false generalisation. .....

Oh, so you are allowed to make them but no one else is?
Okay, I see. Thank you.

I... Solo players already ARE rewarded with their easier game ...

Generalisation and also false

Merely suggesting they reward players who take extra risks. would not be the first time FD agreed with this.

Generalisation and also false

Given you the reason why your own generalisations are false, but you ignored the points made to misquote me and play the victim so you can report me to the mods.
So, while I wait for whatever action the mods want to take (plus it's time I went a cooked dinner) I'm done with your trolling and attempts to play the victim.

At least I get the satisfaction of putting you on ignore - you should be honoured, you're only the 2nd person to make it there in a year.

- - - Updated - - -

Hello all

Please stop sniping at each other, it does not further the debate. If there is any still to be had after 25,000 posts.

Yes, I found a new idea to the thread.

Remove Open Mode, that way, nothing for people to argue over

 

[Mouse]

I'm all for it, with one slight (ok, major ) alteration - those penalties should only apply to the faction you've offended and racked up the bounty with.

If the controlling faction in a system wants your blood, its rival factions within that system may not necessarily have a problem with you. Minor factions within a system are always in competition for power with each other, so some may welcome your actions against their rivals and be willing to harbour you. We all know that real governments and corporations turn a blind-eye to illegal behaviour that benefits them or undermines the competition - it should be rife in Elite's cut-throat dystopia

Government type and system security level could factor into all this too - a low security dictatorship would have much more blind-eye-turning than a high-security democracy, for example. And of course, Anarchists do not ask questions!

I think that criminality has lots of shades of grey that make it interesting and appealing to players - making them realistic with meaningful consequences would enrich both the criminal and law-abiding players, especially in Open play.

Fully agree

- - - Updated - - -

Unofortunatly nobody notices anymore the poll. Almost no votes anymore in the last hours.

when the merge happened the poll closed I think.

 

[Jockey79]

when the merge happened the poll closed I think.

Exactly what happened.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Oh, so you are allowed to make them but no one else is?
Okay, I see. Thank you.



Generalisation and also false



Generalisation and also false

Given you the reason why your own generalisations are false, but you ignored the points made to misquote me and play the victim so you can report me to the mods.
So, while I wait for whatever action the mods want to take (plus it's time I went a cooked dinner) I'm done with your trolling and attempts to play the victim.

At least I get the satisfaction of putting you on ignore - you should be honoured, you're only the 2nd person to make it there in a year.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, I found a new idea to the thread.

Remove Open Mode, that way, nothing for people to argue over

"Generalisation and also false " That is just my subjective opinion though Based on my experiences. If you are offended, then Sorry

"Oh, so you are allowed to make them but no one else is?
Okay, I see. Thank you." - Feel free to make them, I will just point out where you are incorrect.

"I... Solo players already ARE rewarded with their easier game ...""Generalisation and also false "

No it is statement of fact based on two separate occurrences. Again, I am not here to argue that topic. Just offering opinions and suggestions, not here to insult you at all.

"So, while I wait for whatever action the mods want to take (plus it's time I went a cooked dinner) I'm done with your trolling and attempts to play the victim."

Once again, you are the one being insulting, making fun of spelling, calling people trolls, tone policing people, calling SC fans trolls, making false claims and mis quoting me. I have continued to be rational, butI think you will find the moderator already asked the sniping to stop. I agree, so I see no reason for you to continue being offensive

"At least I get the satisfaction of putting you on ignore - you should be honoured, you're only the 2nd person to make it there in a year."

Well you could have saved yourself a lot of pain and did this from the start From your first post 3 days ago you said you were tired of responding. Obviously not..

 

[Mouse]

Excellent point, consent is not required, so they must accept this when the click on Open Play.

There was no binding contract for me to sign saying that by entering this mode to play with others I must accept PVP

 

[Jockey79]

There was no binding contract for me to sign saying that by entering this mode to play with others I must accept PVP

400 Billion Star Systems. Infinite Freedom. Blaze Your Own Trail. (https://www.frontierstore.net/games/elite-dangerous-cat/elite-dangerous.html)

Not much "infinite freedom" when others can tell you how to play is there.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

There was no binding contract for me to sign saying that by entering this mode to play with others I must accept PVP

No one is forcing you to play the game.. I never said there was a "binding contract" lol. Players should accept that Open contains non-consensual PvP as it is. I suggested a trigger warning.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No one is forcing you to play the game.. I never said there was a "binding contract" lol. Players should accept that Open contains non-consensual PvP as it is. I suggested a trigger warning.

.... and others suggest an Open-PvE analog to the existing Open(-PvP/E) mode.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

.... and others suggest an Open-PvE analog to the existing Open(-PvP/E) mode.

Yeah I am fine with people suggesting that. I am opposed to it though, that is why I voted No in that poll.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yeah I am fine with people suggesting that. I am opposed to it though, that is why I voted No in that poll.

Understood - there are differing opinions.

 

[Faded Glory]

Network or firewall modification is the equivalent of combat logging on the side of the aggressors. It prevents people from being targeted by bounty hunters, but still allows them to pirate or grief.

Both firewalling and combat logging are non-legitimate ways to reduce PVP risk but still play in Open, and I think they should be addressed together with technical means, to make Open a more fair environment overall.

I really don't think that a firewall can filter out traffic based upon the role someone is playing in the game, but perhaps Asp will be along later and make a more informed decision. Even if it were possible, CMDR bounty hunters are only a small part of the game, and NPC system authority will still target you if you are wanted.

As to modifying router/firewall settings to avoid all other players and PvP risk, there's no need to do that, just drop into a trusted group or solo.

 

[ianw]

I really don't think that a firewall can filter out traffic based upon the role someone is playing in the game, but perhaps Asp will be along later and make a more informed decision. Even if it were possible, CMDR bounty hunters are only a small part of the game, and NPC system authority will still target you if you are wanted.

As to modifying router/firewall settings to avoid all other players and PvP risk, there's no need to do that, just drop into a trusted group or solo.

IIRC avoiding all other players was a hypothetical "solo/private" solution to the hypothetical scenario where FD locked everyone into open - which of course won't happen.

 

[Jockey79]

.... and others suggest an Open-PvE analog to the existing Open(-PvP/E) mode.

Roybe suggests removing PvP from Open and keeping it in the new CQC Mode. I don't mind this idea.

And my new idea to end all of this once and for all - just remove Open Mode.

Without Open Mode;

No one can claim 1 mode is better than another,
No one can ask for boosts to rewards as their mode has more "risk" - as everyone would be in private groups,
No one can moan over the rules of a group, as you have to join them through choice,

and other reasons I CBA to type while cooking.
But basically all the gripes open advocates claim to have are solved by removing Open and making sure everyone is equal in private groups.

And as instancing only puts up to 32 in one instance, a CODE PvP group and Mobius PvE group would see little change to the game.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I really don't think that a firewall can filter out traffic based upon the role someone is playing in the game, but perhaps Asp will be along later and make a more informed decision. Even if it were possible, CMDR bounty hunters are only a small part of the game, and NPC system authority will still target you if you are wanted.

As to modifying router/firewall settings to avoid all other players and PvP risk, there's no need to do that, just drop into a trusted group or solo.

Apparently they use force desync to blast each player in an instance into their own instance, basically killing an instance rather than deal with other players. That is what one forum member admitted to here. I asked why he wanted to spoil others game, and said it was a protest against FDEV or something. I think it is a pretty destructive form of cheating. Other players on here have admitted to blocking the connections to their computer via their modem settings. I still consider that cheating, like logging. I am no expert on networks though, if it is true it sounds pretty shameful to me.

 

[ianw]

Roybe suggests removing PvP from Open and keeping it in the new CQC Mode. I don't mind this idea.

And my new idea to end all of this once and for all - just remove Open Mode.

Without Open Mode;

No one can claim 1 mode is better than another,
No one can ask for boosts to rewards as their mode has more "risk" - as everyone would be in private groups,
No one can moan over the rules of a group, as you have to join them through choice,

and other reasons I CBA to type while cooking.
But basically all the gripes open advocates claim to have are solved by removing Open and making sure everyone is equal in private groups.

And as instancing only puts up to 32 in one instance, a CODE PvP group and Mobius PvE group would see little change to the game.

I have to say Jockey in spite of the fact we agree on many things - I don't like Roybe's idea or your idea of removing open.

Have a good meal!

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Roybe suggests removing PvP from Open and keeping it in the new CQC Mode. I don't mind this idea.

And my new idea to end all of this once and for all - just remove Open Mode.

Without Open Mode;

No one can claim 1 mode is better than another,
No one can ask for boosts to rewards as their mode has more "risk" - as everyone would be in private groups,
No one can moan over the rules of a group, as you have to join them through choice,

and other reasons I CBA to type while cooking.
But basically all the gripes open advocates claim to have are solved by removing Open and making sure everyone is equal in private groups.

And as instancing only puts up to 32 in one instance, a CODE PvP group and Mobius PvE group would see little change to the game.

It seems you want to remove open mode based on forum politics, ie. No one can claim, no one can ask, no one can moan. Do you think it is wise to justify removing a mode based on the forum arguments?

 

[JuicyFruits]

Could we have another mode?

"open only" - with a separate save that can only be played in this mode. I'd play that, and it would fix the open vs solo debate.

 

[ianw]

I'd go with separate open PVE login.

Or some kind of PVP flag.

 

[Faded Glory]

Apparently they use force desync to blast each player in an instance into their own instance, basically killing an instance rather than deal with other players. That is what one forum member admitted to here. I asked why he wanted to spoil others game, and said it was a protest against FDEV or something. I think it is a pretty destructive form of cheating. Other players on here have admitted to blocking the connections to their computer via their modem settings. I still consider that cheating, like logging. I am no expert on networks though, if it is true it sounds pretty shameful to me.

Right, I'm aware that they can block all players, and hadn't heard about the desync, but again, that sounds like a mechanism to isolate yourself completely... I don't know.

I still don't see the point in playing in Open, and then going to all the trouble to isolate yourself from other players when you can do exactly the same thing legitimately by switching modes. The only time I've seen it brought up is when people have suggested that Solo be dropped, and everybody forced to play in Open.

 

[Jockey79]

Could we have another mode?

"open only" - with a separate save that can only be played in this mode. I'd play that, and it would fix the open vs solo debate.

How would that fix anything?

You'd still get people saying Solo is easy mode, Open Only has more risks and should earn more, Open Only should have its own BGS that no one else can touch (which FD said no to already)
You still get the same complaints as you get now.

I'd go with separate open PVE login.

Or some kind of PVP flag.

The flag system "breaks immersion" remember - this was pitched to FD and they turned it down for that reason.
Open PvE mode still has the complaints that PvPers have "more risk" and that Open PvP is the "correct mode".

No Open = no Open Elitist arguments. Problem solved.

You still can swap groups / modes to suit your mood, CQC arena, PvE groups, PvP groups - everyone gets everything the game has to offer without the constant nagging that Open "deserves" more.