Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[ianw]

No, that's fine in a "be careful what you wish" for kinda way, although it won't have any effect on most pvpers or PK'ers.

The hypocrisy is on those who are in favor of mode locking for their enemies while saying it shouldn't be used against them. It's like an anti nuclear group being ok with nuking those who want to keep their nuclear arms.

It just seems to me that if a player attacks another player that has no bounty or without and PP, CG or CZ reason then they should be available for other players to shoot in open. Seems reasonable if you want to fight players then you should stick around to do so.

If you don't attack players then you can switch modes at will. Can't see anything wrong with that.

I know it won't happen - even though the plan was to keep bountied players in open till they were cleansed of their bounty.

 

[DarkWalker]

The hypocrisy is on those who are in favor of mode locking for their enemies while saying it shouldn't be used against them. It's like an anti nuclear group member being ok with nuking countries who want to keep their nuclear arms.

More like those that don't want violence used against them being fine with violence being used against those that do use violence themselves. Which is, well, most people in the world, as that roughly describes apprehending criminals.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No, that's fine in a "be careful what you wish" for kinda way, although it won't have any effect on most pvpers or PK'ers.

The hypocrisy is on those who are in favor of mode locking for their enemies while saying it shouldn't be used against them. It's like an anti nuclear group member being ok with nuking countries who want to keep their nuclear arms.

If such a mode lock were to be implemented (it was certainly considered in discussions on Crime & Punishment), why would such a temporary mode lock be a particular problem? The player who became mode locked would have been playing in the same mode voluntarily when they incurred the bounty that temporarily locked them into that mode.

This is not quite the same as the "lock a players commander in one mode and never let the player mode switch again" proposal.

 

[Roybe]

If such a mode lock were to be implemented (it was certainly considered in discussions on Crime & Punishment), why would such a temporary mode lock be a particular problem? The player who became mode locked would have been playing in the same mode voluntarily when they incurred the bounty that temporarily locked them into that mode.

This is not quite the same as the "lock a players commander in one mode and never let the player mode switch again" proposal.

My only issue with this..is that it only affects what should be an extremely small part of the population...i.e. PK players that mode swap to avoid bounty hunters.

The population of PK players is very small to start with...those that would avoid the punishment by private hopping are even smaller. Basically, the assets spent by the devs would have a very poor return on investment.

Past that argument...the only other issue I see is people are requesting to remove someone's freedom for playing the game the way they want to.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

If such a mode lock were to be implemented (it was certainly considered in discussions on Crime & Punishment), why would such a temporary mode lock be a particular problem? The player who became mode locked would have been playing in the same mode voluntarily when they incurred the bounty that temporarily locked them into that mode.

This is not quite the same as the "lock a players commander in one mode and never let the player mode switch again" proposal.

It would be a problem because it's a restriction and a mode lock. If a mode lock is in the game players will demand such a mode lock for other situations. I agree with Jordan Cobalt with the "be careful what you wish" aspect. It is not different as players can't freely switch modes whenever they want. It's not a permanent lock, but it is a reduction of freedom.

And I think such a mode lock would be absolutely useless. If it's a timed lock, why should a player be forced into a mode if the bounty is already payed? That would be an advantage for the solo or group players, as they can get a bounty pay it and switch modes. If the mode lock is only active as long as the bounty exists, then why shouldn't the player to commit suicide by police in a sidewinder and be free to switch modes?

There are better ways to make the crime system more enjoyable for all players while discourage unmotivated player killing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

My only issue with this..is that it only affects what should be an extremely small part of the population...i.e. PK players that mode swap to avoid bounty hunters.

The population of PK players is very small to start with...those that would avoid the punishment by private hopping are even smaller. Basically, the assets spent by the devs would have a very poor return on investment.

Past that argument...the only other issue I see is people are requesting to remove someone's freedom for playing the game the way they want to.

While the population of the PKer group that mode switches to avoid being destroyed may be small, the oft mentioned "players can change mode to avoid player bounty hunters" issue would tend to suggest that changing the consequences for all players for destroying other players would probably be well received by the player-base in general.

Not sure how much development this would take - adding a flag to a bounty incurred destroying another player which limits a player to playing in Open does not sound like a massive change. The shadowban game mode already exists, after all.

 

[Roybe]

While the population of the PKer group that mode switches to avoid being destroyed may be small, the oft mentioned "players can change mode to avoid player bounty hunters" issue would tend to suggest that changing the consequences for all players for destroying other players would probably be well received by the player-base in general.

Not sure how much development this would take - adding a flag to a bounty incurred destroying another player which limits a player to playing in Open does not sound like a massive change. The shadowban game mode already exists, after all.

Well then what you are asking for is not for PK players to have a flag...but all players that have a bounty have a flag? To force them to remain in Open so that bounty hunters have a chance to collect the bounties? Even if you are only requesting PK players to have the flag...it still does not do away with the purported problem, it would improve it...however, it punishes a very small subset of the population. Either way, this just seems inherently unfair to those that are playing the game the way they want.

 

[khaitom]

Mode locking won't work. You can always get instanced by yourself if you have a bad/laggy connection. Swapping to solo would be replaced with connecting via a mobile phone rather than broadband. Best to leave it as a reliable option available to everyone.

If you force me into open all the time then don't complain when I have to go AFK at short notice and block a pad for an hour. I normally switch to solo when I know I'm going to get distracted.

 

[ianw]

Either way, this just seems inherently unfair to those that are playing the game the way they want.

We can't all play the game we want anyway - when two players meet and one has an equipment and/or skill advantage they dictate the outcome.

It's a red herring Roybe!

 

[Jockey79]

..... this just seems inherently unfair to those that are playing the game the way they want.

Funny, so does removing Solo / Group or locking everyone in to one mode;

Yet Open mode players keep asking for it - funny how when the arguments are reversed around people don't want locks placing in game.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

If such a mode lock were to be implemented (it was certainly considered in discussions on Crime & Punishment), why would such a temporary mode lock be a particular problem? The player who became mode locked would have been playing in the same mode voluntarily when they incurred the bounty that temporarily locked them into that mode.

This is not quite the same as the "lock a players commander in one mode and never let the player mode switch again" proposal.

I don't really have a problem with it, it won't effect me, I only play open. I also doubt it will effect most of the pvp population since they mostly play in open anyway. The only ones it will effect are those who dip their toes in open pvp between solo/group sessions. Aka the trader who gets bored and decides to pirate for a little, or the pvp player who has to recoup his losses so he trades in solo.

My main issue with it is that it punishes some professions over others. If Mr peaceful trader can switch at will and play his way, than it seems hypocritical to not let mr evil pirate do so as well.

 

[Asp Explorer]

If Mr Peaceful Trader doesn't blow anybody up, then let's say he retains the "privilege" of being able to switch modes at will. If Mr Evil Pirate goes on a pew-pew spree and murders Mr Peaceful Trader, then perhaps revoke his "privilege" to mode switch until his non-resettable bounty has been claimed by Mr Bounty Hunter in Open.

Completely open to abuse of course, but that might keep the Open Only advocates happy.

 

[Jockey79]

....
My main issue with it is that it punishes some professions over others. If Mr peaceful trader can switch at will and play his way, than it seems hypocritical to not let mr evil pirate do so as well.

Stupid question....

But why would Mr Evil Pirate want to switch?

No one to pirate in Solo, and you've said yourself NPCs are not worth it.... so how does this impact his game, when he does not need it to start with?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I find it deliciously hypocritical that some of the same people that defend mode switching as a Divine right for pve players, are in support of it being taken away from pvp players as a punishment.

1) I would only be in favour of it if said player got it against a human in open, surely it is only fair to allow a player the chance to retailiat against a player who attacked him/her - possibly even only for "major" crimes such as ship destruction, not simple piracy.

truth is however, I am not that fussed either way, I just see it as the only time when i would be ok with locking in open (I thought you would be in favour of this in some instances).

but the big one for me is

2) not hypocritacal at all, because indeed this very mechanism of being locked into open for a time after attacking a players was outlined in the DDF / talked about by the devs pre release.

any mechanism which was talked about by the devs before release I consider myself forewarned and therefore forarmed - and yes I include features I am not exactly keen on. IF FD said sorry we do not have enough money the game is failing, so we NEED to allow limited money selling, I would accept it, even if i did not like it, because we were warned it was a possibility from day zero.

The devs have chosen to try not to go down this road, but it is still there if they need to.

mechanically this is difficult (impossible?) to pull off so it wont happen anyway.....

 

[Roybe]

We can't all play the game we want anyway - when two players meet and one has an equipment and/or skill advantage they dictate the outcome.

It's a red herring Roybe!

Then it's a red herring both sides have been waving at each other since the inception of these threads...either you can play the way you want...or not...just because someone has more than you and can interfere with you...does not mean you cannot try. You might 'lose' in one case...out of how many that you have 'won'?

Funny, so does removing Solo / Group or locking everyone in to one mode;

Yet Open mode players keep asking for it - funny how when the arguments are reversed around people don't want locks placing in game.

Two reasons I see from Open players requesting this are really the same argument being put forth by Ian...to lock 'prey' to a certain mode so they can be used for content.

The idea is more refined by Ian...in that the people he wants to lock are those that have committed a 'crime' against others...but the idea is basically the same...

Personally, if locking was to occur...it would not be a game breaker. It would be an 'unfair' change to the rules..since I bought the game with the ability to freely switch...but the game is also 'under construction'...so sometimes major design decisions would have to be expected.

I also tend to respond to these types of ideas to discuss the huge change in direction that those proposing the change have vociferously argued against in the past...what has changed to make you change your mind and see that mode locking would be beneficial?

I know Jockey has changed his mind on the removal of PVP from Open, which, although would change the nature of the game substantially, it would also remove most of the contentious issues that the modes create, whether a person agrees or disagrees, this makes sense.

Locking the modes, as part of the justice system, is a rather large change in opinion...since the game offers the freedom to switch at its most basic level. It does not seem to offer a solution to the problem at hand...curtailing the PK'er...it just locks them to their preferred mode. Again, it would make more sense to lock all bounty holding players to Open...as prey for bounty hunters...as part of the Justice System...but then that means you would have to force people into Open...to be content.

Locking them to the place they committed their crime just seems like an arbitrary decision...I could be in Open 95% of the time..but I commit a crime of some sort while in Private (even worse, while I jumped into Private to shuttle to a different ship) locks me there? Fair? Not Fair?

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Stupid question....

But why would Mr Evil Pirate want to switch?

No one to pirate in Solo, and you've said yourself NPCs are not worth it.... so how does this impact his game, when he does not need it to start with?

Whether they'll use it or not, is not relevant. If a trader were to only ever to play in either open or solo, would you be advocating the option be removed for them as well since they aren't using it?

What matters to me is the fairness behind the idea, rather than the punishment itself since it's of no inconvenience to me.

 

[ianw]

Then it's a red herring both sides have been waving at each other since the inception of these threads...either you can play the way you want...or not...just because someone has more than you and can interfere with you...does not mean you cannot try. You might 'lose' in one case...out of how many that you have 'won'?

As you said yourself though they can interfere with you - the mere fact that you have to respond already means you are playing their way.

Yes it is a red herring for both sides.

It's marketing from ED - another useful acronym is it's a LOB!

The idea that people can play "their way" sounds great. But what it really means is play your way based on the options available in game until you meet someone whose client is more powerful than yours.

And the reality is if Commander Pirate or Commander Pker meets Commander Miner or Trader it's Pirate or Pker that get to enforce the terms of the encounter on their terms - the only realistic option Miner or Trader has is The Brave Sir Robin and then they're already playing someone else's way.

 

[Julissa Silver]

It all boils down to consent. One side thinks it's okay to ignore individual consent while the other expects consent to be respected.

Funny how it's those who don't respect others' consent that squeak the loudest about their freedom being curtailed whenever there's any threat to their ability to harm others. Delicious irony, I sup at thee.

 

[Sylveria]

It all boils down to consent. One side thinks it's okay to ignore individual consent while the other expects consent to be respected.

Funny how it's those who don't respect others' consent that squeak the loudest about their freedom being curtailed whenever there's any threat to their ability to harm others. Delicious irony, I sup at thee.

^ seconded.

 

[Roybe]

It all boils down to consent. One side thinks it's okay to ignore individual consent while the other expects consent to be respected.

Funny how it's those who don't respect others' consent that squeak the loudest about their freedom being curtailed whenever there's any threat to their ability to harm others. Delicious irony, I sup at thee.

Actually, consent has to be assumed if they are in Open...the 'lack of a proper warning' is a red herring there to. I will concede this point..since many folks just want some words to the affect 'Abandon hope, all ye who enter..' at the Open menu. It does not change that consent is already given...it just makes it very obvious that it occurs.

- - - Updated - - -

As you said yourself though they can interfere with you - the mere fact that you have to respond already means you are playing their way.

Yes it is a red herring for both sides.

It's marketing from ED - another useful acronym is it's a LOB!

The idea that people can play "their way" sounds great. But what it really means is play your way based on the options available in game until you meet someone whose client is more powerful than yours.

And the reality is if Commander Pirate or Commander Pker meets Commander Miner or Trader it's Pirate or Pker that get to enforce the terms of the encounter on their terms - the only realistic option Miner or Trader has is The Brave Sir Robin and then they're already playing someone else's way.

Well then, Jockey has it right! Do away with PVP in Open...as the PVP players dictate what everyone else does...this is an unfair advantage and means the only people that can play their way in Open are those that PVP.