Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
From the FAQ that was posted here in the earliest days of the Kickstarter, nearly three years ago:
- Status
From the FAQ that was posted here in the earliest days of the Kickstarter, nearly three years ago:
As the Pilots' Federation deals with all of the issues relating to ranking, maybe they would take a *very* dim view of members destroying other members and reduce the combat rank of those who do....
So some one sees another commander who is a "novice" and lets guard down, when they are anything but
So Jim Bob plays in Open but he is at his Aunt's house and her connection sucks.. he just can't play? Nope he switches to Solo and has fun till he gets back home and can have his full connection again. Making him roll a new character to play in solo just because he's got a bad connection is not the answer
Who are you to tell everyone how to play though? If you want to stick to one mode, that's your business. What makes you think that your preferences should be extended to another, single, individual, let alone the entire player community? I personally do play as you suggest. I rarely enter open at all, and when I do it's always in a Hauler, because they are essentially free. However, staying out of open is my preference. I have no right to tell some other person how to play their game. If they want to jump in and out of solo and open, that's entirely up to them, not you, not me, but their own will, and that's as it should be.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given that players can wipe their commander or buy a new copy of the game and start another commander - there's no way of knowing how skilled (or not) a pilot is. The combat ranks don't take into account K/D ratio, to my knowledge - it's just a matter of time and persistence in gaining them.
Why? Since when do you get to dictate how other people play a game that they bought?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Well I tell you what though... Since we're making up rules for how everybody should play the game, how about this.
If you are not a good enough pilot to destroy a CMDR in a Vulture, Python or Anaconda, regardless of how that CMDR purchased their ship, then you are not allowed to destroy CMDRs in either single purpose trade ships, or any ship smaller than your own...
No thanks. People may want a different experience from the game on different days. Hard day at work? Try a few gentle trade runs in quiet systems. Off work today? Have a blast in PvP.
You don't lose anything by having someone else play their way. I never go into open myself, but that's just my choice. If you don't like mode switching, don't mode switch.
Cheers, Phos.
Last edited:
If it truly needs a boost in rewards to have enough players to be enjoyable, as some of those defending Open keep saying, then yeah, without any doubt
Which then disregards all the valid reasons players might want to vary their play style. Crappy connection while traveling, a desire to relax after a hard day at work, a need to be ready to leave at a moment's notice, wanting to make use of the ultra high resolution screenshot feature from Solo, and so on; many legitimate reasons exist for someone that mainly play in Open to delve into Solo or Group modes.
Segregating players like that would very likely also prevent many players that start in Solo from trying Open. And, by forcing players that enjoy more than one mode to choose just one, would also cause Open to lose players that way. My bet is that it would significantly reduce the number of people in Open.
If it truly needs a boost in rewards to have enough players to be enjoyable, as some of those defending Open keep saying, then yeah, without any doubt
Changing the level of reward for any mode is ridiculous. The game needs balancing in general to make PvP interactions both more meaningful (think before you act) and less devastating (ok, I'm someone else's content, but it wasn't that bad after all). That's how I see making Open more enjoyable. But the same logic should flow to all modes.
There are certainly many valid reasons for wanting to switch modes. Taking away that option would be a really bad move. The problem comes when players use the switch as just another mechanic that can be exploited. There's no point for aggressors in Open to say 'just fight back' if the option to quickly run to Solo is there as soon as someone does. Unfortunately, I can't see any way that you can stop that kind of behaviour with the system as it is.
I can also see why some would get frustrated with the fact that both Open and Solo affect the same game state. What really is the point of working toward some goal the hard way, if players can undermine your efforts the easy way. It's like having some teams playing a full contact version of a sport and other teams playing a non-contact version of the sport, but being on the same championship ladder - it doesn't make sense.
Unfortunately, probably the only way to stop the kind of behavior you are referring to would be to lock players into a mode, in other words force them to behave 'honorably'. The thing is, you probably cannot force someone who doesn't want to play 'honorably' to do so, and those players would just leave. Great, job done, but now everyone remaining has a game with restricted options. At the moment, all players can choose to interact with whoever they want to, or to ignore them if that's their choice, and typically the only people complaining are those who want more live content for their jollies, consensual or not.
It's not the system that's broken, it's the fact that people will be people.
The BGS is really very PvE oriented, and the idea that you can influence it solely by direct PvP action is not practical or realistic. Your analogy is quite good, although I can't think of any sports that have either a contact mode, or a non contact mode.
The point is that we, the players are not playing against each other, we are playing against the environment. Why do it the 'hard' way (it's a disputed notion that Open is necessarily harder)? Because you want to, because it's more fun for you, that can be the only reason.Complaining about it (as some do) when everybody has exactly the same options and opportunities is pointless, and suggests to me a misconception of what the game is, wanting a different game, or of having an ulterior motive, although of course I could be just leaping to conclusions there.
Last edited:
Nor do I. And quite frankly, I'd rather leave things the way they are than break that "sense of size" by allowing rapid travel simply for the sake of facilitating wing formation.
I don't think the game should set the percentage at all.
For example:
I'm running trade into a dangerous area. I post an "ad" - Combat pilots wanted for escort of a T9 from ShakingInMyBoots station in RainbowSafeZone A to HellHole Orbital in SharkInfestedCustard B. Split rate 40%(that I set). Apply here (button or link). Indicate ship config, combat ranking and willingness to accept additional wingmates.
Combat pilot looks at that, knows that if he applies and I invite him to the wing then he and any other wingmates I hire will split 40% of my profits from the run. He also knows that I and any other wingmates I hire will split 40% of any bounty vouchers he claims along the way. He applies, stating he will accept no more than one additional wingman.
Three other combat pilots apply stating they would accept up to two additional wingmen.
Two others apply stating they will accept no additional wingmen (they want the 40% of my trade profit all to themselves)
I check them out. One I reject immediately, I've heard from other traders that this guy tends to turn pirate in the middle of the run and bring in three other buddies to take down any resistance from loyal wingmates. Of the rest, only one is combat ranked higher than Master, he's ranked Elite, flying a completely combat-maxed Python, but he's also one of the ones that doesn't want any other wingmen along to share the profit. Two of the Master-ranked ones will accept one wingman and they are flying a vulture and a combat 'conda. I choose to hire those two and invite them to the wing, plotting a route that will allow us all to jump it. When we dock and I sell my cargo I lose 40% of my profit and that is split evenly between my two escorts giving them each 20% of the profit from a T9s hold on the run in addition to 60% of the bounty vouchers for any pirate they blew away en route. On the other hand I get 20% of any bounty voucher either of them collected along the way too, the other 20% going to the other escort.
I could have hired better pilots, but they demand higher split rates or fewer wingmen to divide it between - I set the rate and pick from those that are willing to come along at that rate.
Something like this would let combat pilots share properly in the profit of the trader that hired them. If you don't like the percentage the trader is offering, hire yourself to somebody else who is offering a rate you like or wait for them to realize their offer is too low to attract decent coverage and up it a little.
With something like THAT in place, I'd be spending a lot more time in open, either taking on escort duties in a combat ship or running trade with hired guns to back me up.
DaveB - an implementation of that would transform this game for the better. Pity my rep button is broken, you deserve lots for that.
It was just an idea- a less complex system, but yes I can see the value of your suggestion as well. +1 rep
Don't worry, I repped him for you.
Agree that the ability to switch modes isn't exactly 'broken'. Game mechanics... I think there is room for improvement. People being people is, more often than not, the problem. Different people want to play the game in different ways. It's going to have to come down to some sort of compromise for everyone.
Isn't PP supposed to be strongly player driven though? If players from a faction are trying to work toward some PP goal, wouldn't one of the obvious defences to that be PvP with those players? The other option being putting effort into a counter-goal (if that's the way it works).
Your analogy is quite good, although I can't think of any sports that have either a contact mode, or a non contact mode.
Rugby League. I'm Australian. If you're from the USA and follow NFL, think Jarryd Hayne. Anyway, Rugby League is a contact sport. But it is also played in schools and by enthusiasts as a 'Touch' version - basically the same game, but no tackling. We have a national competition that runs every year with teams vying for position on the ladder. It would hardly be reasonable for a team to play by the 'Touch' rules and still expect to rank against those who have to endure the full physical contact.
For the most part, yes. I'm not really involved in any PP tug-of-war. I play mostly PvE. But I play in Open because I think it can make things a bit more interesting.
Complaining about it (as some do) when everybody has exactly the same options and opportunities is pointless, and suggests to me a misconception of what the game is, wanting a different game, or of having an ulterior motive, although of course I could be just leaping to conclusions there.
It's not really all black and white though, is it? Going down the 'everybody has the same options' path doesn't always work - think cheating.
Indeed, different players do want to play different ways, and what we have now is a compromise that allows that. Doesn't make the Open only contingent happy because it deprives them of content.
Absolutely, it's possible to PvP with players in a different faction, and that's allowed, but the other option is more likely to work better, especially bearing in mind that the networking the game uses does not, can not put all players together. Even if you play exclusively Open, a (probably) majority of other Open players will be invisible to you, even if they are in exactly the same place as you.
I learnt something.
Well, I guess if FD wanted to run two versions of the same 'competition', they could, but due to the networking issues, it would sadly probably not solve the problem.As it happens, I don't play PP either.
And as far as I'm concerned, that's the best reason for playing Open that you could have, well, that and it makes the game more fun for you.Perhaps not black and white, but I don't see where cheating comes into it, unless you are suggesting that playing in a mode other than Open is cheating, and I don't believe from your posts that you do think that (although others have claimed it). It seems to me that in the context of this game, the fact that everyone has the same options is the most fair and balanced way FD could make the game.
This is a huge issue that keeps coming up. I can understand why they went down the path they did. But it's still ultimately somewhat of a roadblock to many suggestions that have been put forward.
Not at all. I was pointing out that the "You shouldn't complain because you can do it too" argument doesn't always work. I'm pretty sure there are players out there who are happy to use game exploits to their advantage (or even actual hacks) and will chime away, "Well, you can just do the same thing." It doesn't work because the other players are holding themselves to a higher standard.
In my opinion, the networking issues prevent pretty much any meaningful playing with other players. For example, DaveB's post above has great ideas, but would (probably) be made into a chore by the nature of the networking.
I see what you are saying about cheating, but to be honest, it kind of doesn't bother me, primarily as I don't really care what other players do in the game, and since they cannot ultimately 'beat' me, if they choose to cheat, they are really just cheating themselves out of stuff the game might have to offer them, good or bad.
As to holding oneself to a 'higher standard', in respects to the game, then that is something that they can do and feel good about themselves, and perhaps amongst their peers, but there's no need to insist everyone plays to their standards. It's important to stress here, that in general, this game is not a competition, nobody wins, ever. It's about the journey. And it's worth saying that playing in Open is not a 'higher standard' than playing Solo, just different, where different skill sets may benefit you more, with the perceived skill as a combat pilot obviously considered special, yet it's by no means certain that awesome combat skills are shown by players in combat ships destroying traders and newbies in Sidewinders.
To give an analogy, I mountain bike, and there's one very popular ride here that is accessed by climbing a couple of miles up a hill to get access to the downhill bit. Personally, I ride up that hill, but plenty load themselves and their bikes into trucks and shuttle to the top. Do I care? Not in the slightest, it's my choice to ride up the hill, and I do not think they are any less entitled to the downhill than I am, and I don't consider them to be riding to a lower standard than me.
In my opinion, the networking issues prevent pretty much any meaningful playing with other players. For example, DaveB's post above has great ideas, but would (probably) be made into a chore by the nature of the networking.
I see what you are saying about cheating, but to be honest, it kind of doesn't bother me, primarily as I don't really care what other players do in the game, and since they cannot ultimately 'beat' me, if they choose to cheat, they are really just cheating themselves out of stuff the game might have to offer them, good or bad.
As to holding oneself to a 'higher standard', in respects to the game, then that is something that they can do and feel good about themselves, and perhaps amongst their peers, but there's no need to insist everyone plays to their standards. It's important to stress here, that in general, this game is not a competition, nobody wins, ever. It's about the journey. And it's worth saying that playing in Open is not a 'higher standard' than playing Solo, just different, where different skill sets may benefit you more, with the perceived skill as a combat pilot obviously considered special, yet it's by no means certain that awesome combat skills are shown by players in combat ships destroying traders and newbies in Sidewinders.
To give an analogy, I mountain bike, and there's one very popular ride here that is accessed by climbing a couple of miles up a hill to get access to the downhill bit. Personally, I ride up that hill, but plenty load themselves and their bikes into trucks and shuttle to the top. Do I care? Not in the slightest, it's my choice to ride up the hill, and I do not think they are any less entitled to the downhill than I am, and I don't consider them to be riding to a lower standard than me.
I think you misunderstand me. I meant "higher standard" as in, not sinking to the level of exploiting mechanics, etc. I see no reason why someone should have to "prove themselves" in Open if all they want to do is derive simple enjoyment playing the environment in Solo (or Group).
I get what you mean about Solo being "just different" and in a lot of cases it is. Particularly for people like me (and, it sounds, you) who are happy doing their own thing, aren't in a race to the top, don't engage in PP, etc - I don't see why my mode choice makes any different or that anyone should complain about the choice I make. In my mind, complaining about people playing in Solo because they aren't there in Open as cannon-fodder isn't a worthy argument.
Networking and mechanics aside though, surely you would concede that there is at least a perceived difference when it comes to situations where players are working towards (or against) a common game goal. PP and CGs being examples of these situations. It doesn't mean that either group has a right to exclude the other. But the fact that they both contribute to a common goal with a different set of rules could be viewed as slightly less than fair.
With your analogy, nobody should really care how people get up the hill. It's done for enjoyment. Doesn't affect you. Get over it. But if that was a competition where you started at the bottom and had to make your way to the top and back down again... feelings might change somewhat. Could you imagine CQC CTF if some of the players were allowed to play in a Solo version of CQC?!
- Status