Fee for Open/Solo switching

[SirGirard]

Mostly (I am not saying in THIS case) it boils down to "I HAVE NOT ENOUGH UNWILLING NOOBS TO PEWPEWPEW !!!!ONE!ELEVEN!!!"

YeaaaaY. Take some rep!

 

[Robert Maynard]

... you do realize that this is exactly one of the use cases the different modes are absolutely intended for?

Indeed (bold/italic is my emphasis):

Griefing:

So, we've said we don't mind bad guys. In fact, we go further; we have bad guy gameplay options (piracy, smuggling etc.) By default, this includes psychopathic behaviour - randomly attacking other player "because you can".

We're currently looking at two different angles of defence: an in-game law system and private groups.

The in-game law system should be pretty robust. It allows plausible but strong responses from NPC factions to criminal activities (using authority ships, structures and factional bounties), as well as player-driven bounties (via the Pilot's Federation) and player bounty hunting mechanisms (e.g. broadcasting "sightings" of know villains to help player bounty hunters track them).

All of this should mean that that if you're being naughty you are generating additional challenges for yourself which will undoubtedly make the game harder in some ways (this applies equally whether you are attacking players or NPCs).

It won't guarantee safety, even though it guarantees additional challenges to the bad guys. Which I think is about right; we don't want to make being the bad guy impossible.

The second factor is our grouping mechanisms.

The way it's currently standing, players will be able to enter and leave private groups of some sort reasonably easily, so they will be able to control the level of perceived griefing they want to suffer.

I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

• We have players that want a range of different experiences
• All of those experiences are valid
• Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive

So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.

The worst case scenario here is that a player who wants to avoid an encounter will vanish into a private group. In this case, the player will be forced to escape conventionally first (via hyperspace, docking or something similar).

In this instance, the aggressor still gets some benefit - they "defeated" their prey, and we can hopefully build on this in terms of rewarding them in various ways: via reputation, which can lead to missions and events, via player bragging rights (perhaps only players that remain in the "all group" can feature in various global news feed articles) and potentially via limited physical rewards.

If players are going to live in private groups, well, that suggests that if we had a single environment they would be playing offline or not at all, so they aren't part of the equation.

Players that dip into the "all group" after farming "private groups"; there are a few things to say about this.

• They are unlikely to have as good player-vs-player skills as those who live in the "all" group day in day out.
• NPCs can and will offer appropriate risks (in fact, it would not be a lie to suggest that we *could* make NPC ships significantly nastier than any human ships in the majority of situations. Not that we will, mind. But we could), so to get a tooled up advantage such players will have been facing a appropriate threat level (basically private groups should not be considered "easy mode").
• Everyone has access to their own private group(s)

It's not perfect, but it's my best shot at the moment.

Anyway, taking these two strands into account, again, the result will again be hopefully a "very light touch".

 

[Bortas]

That alone is totally crazy. Regardless of the fee in and of itself being a bad idea, scaling it off someone's total assets... you do know that income doesn't scale that much at all with the stuff you own. Having 100m in assets (which is, like, you sold all your ships to afford just got a mediocre Python and have some spare cash for rebuy) would already mean the fee would be 1 million credits.

Yes I know, I'm crazy, no need to remind me about it but trust me, with assets in the multi billion dollar range I'm perfectly aware of this, and it's exactly the reason why I chose this approach over a fixed sum which becomes meaningless at a point. If I chose, say, 1 million Cr, new players would be unable to switch because they can't afford it, and billionairs wouldn't care, so that would be a bad approch.

My reasoning is: The more experienced you are, the less mode switching should be necessary, because the longer you played, the more you know what you are doing and you know why you chose the mode you are playing in. Personally I'm playing open only and see absolutely no reason why I would switch, except to get docking clearance on an outpost with its only medium pad being blocked by an afk player... but this issue is addressed in the OP.

Also my original suggestion is not inalterable. I could imagine a solution with one free mode change per 24h for example.

It's about getting some amount of consistency with the galaxy. If you play in one mode, you should reap the consequences and benefits of that mode. The core suggestion is trying to punish the idea of switching to the mode that is convenient for you at the time, and motivate the CMDR to have some amount of consistency.

To draw a parallel, explorers enjoy being in the middle of nowhere have to endure the consequence of being separated from their friends in the bubble. In opposition, players who enjoy the safety of solo do not have to endure the consequence of being segregated from their friends in open.

My respect for viewing it that objcectively even after our little dispute on another matter

 

[Lestat]

What happen to Play the way we want. Not play how other people play. I have two accounts. One I play Iron man mode most of the time it solo or Mobuis. But there been times where I went dang it I in pvp. I want to switch. Now I should not have funds taken out because I made a error.

 

[Bortas]

What happen to Play the way we want. Not play how other people play. I have two accounts. One I play Iron man mode most of the time it solo or Mobuis. But there been times where I went dang it I in pvp. I want to switch. Now I should not have funds taken out because I made a error.

Also my original suggestion is not inalterable. I could imagine a solution with one free mode change per 24h for example.

Would that possibly ease your concerns?

 

[Mephane]

This could be done by just making the bulletin boards panmodal rather than unique to each mode.

This should happen regardless of all other considerations. Even when one doesn't log back and forth to collect the best missions, there's always the knowledge at the back of them mind "in the other mode there could be a mission I am not seeing".

And for clarity's sake: I suggest that the boards are combined, i.e. you see in a single panmodal bulletin board the missions of all three modes combined, not two of them cut out.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Maybe go further? Just as you can't change your Commander name once you've started, when you begin a new saved game you choose (open, solo or group .. all equally valid) but would have to stick with that mode. If you change your mind and want to play a different mode, clear save and start again. Now you can play any mode you want, but can't simply log whenever you're inconvenienced by the game.

so xbox live runs out you have to delete your save..... get xbox live for xmas and if you want to play with your friends.... again delete your save.

that aint gonna fly. (there are a whole load of reasons other than that to boot!)

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The three words together are worth more than the sum of their parts. ED is not an MMO, by definition of the term. This is obvious to anyone who would spend more than 10 seconds thinking about it.

in the loosest sense I think ED is an MMO. Whether is is a good one is another question. Even DB himself was reticent to call it one but i guess he / FD decided if warthunder can market itself as one then ED can!.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

But yeah... the cheat- and exploit-approval-crowd is strong in this forum and will torpedo anything that could hinder them from using their beloved exploits with strawman arguments ad nauseum.

lol the hypocrisy in that statement abounds. I can only speak for myself, i do not cheat, i do not grief, i do not CL and i do not use the mode switching to generate missions (its lame), and yet i still think your idea is a bad one.

just because "sometimes i play solo sometimes i play with friends..... because that is the mood i am in" is a weak/irrelevant one to you does not make it so.

also just because it means every time anyone goes on business / away and perhaps is playing on a laptop with weak internet so has to play solo means nothing to you, (despite being shown as a valid way to play by DB himself) reflects more on your empathy than anything.

I am all for banning cheaters, closing exploits along with all the other issues with the game - mostly an issue thanks to a subset of the combative multiplayer crowd - and definitely think the BB missions should be the same accross modes but the "fix" must

not at the expense of ruining the game by either bankrupting me or locking me in to a mode.

I am not sure where you guys wanting fees or locks and what not live, or what internet you have, however for many they are on shared internet, and if others are streaming, working or otherwise using bandwidth, often multiplayer gaming is just not realistic.

not all of us are in our own dedicated bedroom with a dedicated fibre optic cable for gaming.

 

[Winterwalker]

so xbox live runs out you have to delete your save..... get xbox live for xmas and if you want to play with your friends.... again delete your save.

that aint gonna fly. (there are a whole load of reasons other than that to boot!)

I'm not sure what xbox live is, or how it works, but this was why another suggestion went towards allocating a limited number of tokens to make mode switching possible but less likely for reasons along the lines of "I don't like the BB today". Maybe if you get xbox live for Christmas +1 mode-switch token comes in the package, if xbox live runs out maybe you get +2 tokens for renewing.
Suggested numbers only.

edit for ninja ---

just because "sometimes i play solo sometimes i play with friends..... because that is the mood i am in" is a weak/irrelevant one to you does not make it so.

Would it make much difference, if you're in a group, to stay in that group play whether your friends are online or not? If they're not online you're effectively in solo already. Again it's not an attack on solo/group being valid ways to play but I see the OP as a suggestion that at least tries to firm up on "perceived" exploitation, which hopefully feeds into giving ED multiplay (equally popular) added authenticity.

 

[Lestat]

What will traders do. Let say they have all their assets in the good they are trading. How are you going to charge them? Or iron man players who put their all funds into their ships and they don't care how much credit they have left. I went into the last combat area with 100 credit and a 15 million credit ship.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Would it make much difference, if you're in a group, to stay in that group play whether your friends are online or not? If they're not online you're effectively in solo already. Again it's not an attack on solo/group being valid ways to play but I see the OP as a suggestion that at least tries to firm up on "perceived" exploitation, and one which hopefully feeds into giving ED (all-comers multiplay, equally popular) added authenticity.

that depends what the group is........ the "group" i play in with friends is mobius. the chances of all 18,000 being offline at the same time is slim

also it depends on the friends i play with. right now we all play in mobius when we play together. should it be that there were costs involved in swapping i forsee issues with a few of them wanting to move to open, and a few wanting to stay in mobius.

mode swapping is NOT an exploit, or a bug it is a feature.

Do some players use the swapping as an exploit, sure they do, but these should be fixed another way.

persistant BBs for one.

if you force people to pay a fee the upshot will be even more combat logging from the players who really are not wanting to be in open but feel forced or people tinkering with their router to make open a form of solo at the push of a button.

 

[Winterwalker]

What will traders do. Let say they have all their assets in the good they are trading. How are you going to charge them? Or iron man players who put their all funds into their ships and they don't care how much credit they have left. I went into the last combat area with 100 credit and a 15 million credit ship.

These are definite problems with charging a percent ...

Cmdr Psycho Romeo made a good point and suggested a matchmaking solution;

A more appropriate line of thought would be to have the player stake something that is more in line with the relationship between mode switching and the player. For example, people who switch modes often will be matched with others who switch modes more often. People who stay in open exclusively will be matched with others who stay in open exclusively more often. The intention here isn't to suggest this specifically, but rather, to change the 'cost' (assets) into something that is equally meta as the concept of mode switching itself. I don't have a better idea of what that could be other than what I just suggested here, and I don't really feel what I suggested here is necessarily 'sticky' enough to really cause the player to need to make a meaningful decision.

 

[Robert Maynard]

These are definite problems with charging a percent ...

Cmdr Psycho Romeo made a good point and suggested a matchmaking solution;

.... an extrapolation of which would be the addition of another game mode - Open-Only - where players could choose to lock their commanders into (for a period of time, indefinitely, up for debate). That way, any player would be in the mode voluntarily having made the conscious decision to give-up their mode switching ability for a period of time.

 

[Winterwalker]

.... an extrapolation of which would be the addition of another game mode - Open-Only - where players could choose to lock their commanders into (for a period of time, indefinitely, up for debate). That way, any player would be in the mode voluntarily having made the conscious decision to give-up their mode switching ability for a period of time.

Yes I like it. And therefore, anyone choosing open mode would be making a statement that respects the other players in the (open play) group; You chose to play open, so did I .. and you get some sort of guarantee that I will live with my decision, no matter who you are or what threat you may (or may not) present. Not the only reason for mode switching but the one with the most impact on other players.

I may or may not be a pirate, miner, trader, you may or may not like me if you get to know me .. but I can better judge my own honour according the strength of my fellow players, enemies and allies alike .. type of thing.

 

[Bortas]

What will traders do. Let say they have all their assets in the good they are trading. How are you going to charge them?

You mean if someone has more than 99% of his total assets in ships/modules/cargo... that would mean flying without insurance... but in that case, they'd have to sell something, of course.

Or iron man players who put their all funds into their ships and they don't care how much credit they have left.

Someone who doesn't play open at all times, doesn't have the right to call himself iron man, IMHO

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes I like it. And therefore, anyone choosing open mode would be making a statement that respects the other players in the (open play) group; You chose to play open, so did I .. and I will live with my decision, no matter who you are or what threat you may (or may not) present. Not the only reason for mode switching but the one with the most impact on other players.

.... players choosing the proposed "Open-Only" mode, not the existing Open mode, of course.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Not to mention it would have people getting creative with boxes and blinky lights

This.

I'm not very clued-up about networking and routers and such, but it only took me a few minutes of Googling to learn how easy it is to turn your Open experience into Solo.

Not something I would entertain doing myself because I like Open for what it is, but I can imagine that there are those who would - which is why I can't see any changes to the mode switching, or favouring one mode over another, ever working with the current architecture.

 

[Winterwalker]

.... players choosing the proposed "Open-Only" mode, not the existing Open mode, of course.

Yes, offers a form of guarantee that I understand, I am sharing the game space with you \ anyone in the same mode. The OP (for instance) guarantees that by making it cost me *something* to join that mode so I'm disincentivised from switching out, for less than meaningful reasons.


edit --

Not something I would entertain doing myself because I like Open for what it is, but I can imagine that there are those who would - which is why I can't see any changes to the mode switching, or favouring one mode over another, ever working with the current architecture.

If architechture prevents, and that can't be flagged up somehow, then that's a different kettle of goldfish of course. If anyone can solve that as an expoit FD can, right on Commanders, and at the moment it doesn't matter because mode switching is free. Still agree with the thrust of the OP though, for reasons of mode authenticity above.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes, offers a form of guarantee that I understand, I am sharing the game space with you \ anyone in the same mode. The OP (for instance) guarantees that by making it cost me *something* to join that mode so I'm disincentivised from switching out, for less than meaningful reasons.

The main issue, in my opinion, with the OP is that it seeks to restrict player choice through fines (or possibly delays mentioned later). It's just a stick - no carrot involved for the player making the choice - and is more aimed at making other players play the way that some players want them to rather than playing the game how they want to themself.

If a restricted-Open mode were to be introduced, I would have no issue at all with players choosing to play in it and never leave - that's their choice after all.

 

[Beans]

I would rather they simply shadow-banned those continuously/frequently relogging/mode-switching, just like they said they'd do for combat logging. Maybe automatically abandon all ongoing missions upon second relog/switch?