Modes The Open v Solo v Groups thread IV - Hotel California

[Robert Maynard]

I play in open when I am wanting the additional risk of dangerous encounters - for this to be taken away would be a huge detriment to the game.

With Frontier's apparent desire to corral all players seeking an unlimited population in their chosen mode (as Private Groups have an inherent membership cap of 20,000 on PC/Mac and 1,000 on XB1 - not sure about PS4), whether those players are inclined towards PvP or PvE, the likely result, in my opinion, of attempting to entice players out of Solo / Private Groups, would be that no-one is particularly happy with the outcome, i.e. consequences for attacking players are likely to end up being too high for those that like to destroy players and too low for those that [edit] don't [/edit] want to be destroyed by players.

 

[Crank Larson]

With Frontier's apparent desire to corral all players seeking an unlimited population in their chosen mode (as Private Groups have an inherent membership cap of 20,000 on PC/Mac and 1,000 on XB1 - not sure about PS4), whether those players are inclined towards PvP or PvE, the likely result, in my opinion, of attempting to entice players out of Solo / Private Groups, would be that no-one is particularly happy with the outcome, i.e. consequences for attacking players are likely to end up being too high for those that like to destroy players and too low for those that want to be destroyed by players.

This is why no-one should be being enticed anywhere. You are never going to please all the players, but what we have now is a damn good attempt at it. And could well be as close as FD can reasonably get. I am not a great supporter of many of the supposed C&P "improvements" that have been touted. But we'll have to see how they turn out.

 

[Old Duck]

Just as an aside, I usually do CGs in Solo or PG these days, primarily because performance in Open at a crowded system is often crap (particularly in stations and during SC transitions). I also tend to do bounty hunting CGs in Solo / PG because the RESs are too crowded in Open - the result of overfishing is no fish for anyone.

If Solo and PG were removed to "save" Open, it might ruin the very thing that's meant to bring people together in Open, the Community Goal. I'd stop participating all together. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[NeilF]

I play in open when I am wanting the additional risk of dangerous encounters - for this to be taken away would be a huge detriment to the game.

Agreed... But wouldn't it make more sense if you could simply undertake a task where you knew the risk would be as such? eg:-
- A Powerplay task to attack another Power's convoys, with other CMDRs defending them?
- A Military missions to fly a fighter from a capital ship, with other CMDRs fighting against you?
- A Piracy Mission specifically to go and destroy Pilots Federation members at a specific OPEN CG?
- Undertake an OPEN CG to get supplies to specific stations, knowing other CMDRs are signed up to stop you?

I really don't see what's so noble as suggesting one or more heavily engineered CMDRs interdicting Mr Random CMDR flying a basic non-combat ship, simply to enjoy blowing them up for nothing, is in anyway constructive and needs protecting/promoting?

We're three years into this game, and is random interdiction/destruction still being sold as a real worthwhile gameplay element? Are we not slightly confused why there's (still) really not more constructive and interesting things to participate in?

 

[Crank Larson]

I really don't see what's so noble as suggesting one or more heavily engineered CMDRs interdicting Mr Random CMDR flying a basic non-combat ship, simply to enjoy blowing them up for nothing, is in anyway constructive and needs protecting/promoting?

Nothing noble at all, and I never said that such actions are constructive or need promoting. But they aren't actually that common, and I personally believe that the galaxy is big enough for all of us (including psychopaths).

We're three years into this game, and is random interdiction/destruction still being sold as a real worthwhile gameplay element? Are we not slightly confused why there's (still) really not more constructive and interesting things to participate in?

I'm not confused. That there are not currently more constructive and interesting things to participate in comes down to the fact that the game is only three years old. It would appear that I'm looking at the other side of the coin to you.

I have no doubt that FD want to add more interesting things to participate in. And I'm looking forward to trying them out when they arrive. But I'm also patient, and understand software development, and know how long some things can take.

 

[NeilF]

Nothing noble at all, and I never said that such actions are constructive or need promoting. But they aren't actually that common, and I personally believe that the galaxy is big enough for all of us (including psychopaths).

I got fed up of the mindless interdictions and assaults, even in Shinrata. The final blow came with the amount of toxic destruction going on at alien ruins and the like. It was just so cynical after 2.5yrs I finally joined Mobius.

C&P (Karma) needs to significantly rein in illegal destruction anywhere/everywhere. And then the game - shock horror - needs to offer and promote and endorse actual interesting PvP gameplay for those interested. A myriad of scenarios can be offered all pushing CMDRs togethor, especially those more interested in PvP.

Don't want to PvP, then steer clear of the obvious hot spots (eg: Powerplay tasks in Open, specific CGs for Open etc...) Want to PvP? Then choose your poison and jump in...

 

[NeilF]

I'm not confused. That there are not currently more constructive and interesting things to participate in comes down to the fact that the game is only three years old. It would appear that I'm looking at the other side of the coin to you.

I have no doubt that FD want to add more interesting things to participate in. And I'm looking forward to trying them out when they arrive. But I'm also patient, and understand software development, and know how long some things can take.

I'm slightly confused when there's development time to put in fighter gameplay into a stand alone game, but not to instead create combat scenarios/missions in the core game that would reap dividend by leveraging them in numerous directions (Powerplay, CGs, missions). eg: Next month against The Thargoids in interesting combat scenarios...

 

[Phosphora]

It seems to me, the core issue with solo is that people want to fly but not be bothered by enemies attacking them or even friendlies asking to wing up. Maybe they have limited time, like just 20 mins to pop in, or something.

To entice everyone into OPEN, maybe add a toggle onto the right panel where you can set a "no interaction" mode and it keeps players from being able to interdict, crash into or shoot you. Basically, just turns the clipping off. NPCs act the same, so essentially the player is in solo "mode" but in the open world. Over time, seeing the other player ships and seeing how 99% of the player base aren't A-holes, the solo player may want to interact, wing up, and start moving over to open.

So it's more of a catching flies with honey rather than vinegar type of approach. Entice PvE out of solo/Mobius and into open with the stipulation that they can cut off the PvP connection when THEY want to.

No thanks. I decide how I play.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Nothing noble at all, and I never said that such actions are constructive or need promoting. But they aren't actually that common, and I personally believe that the galaxy is big enough for all of us (including psychopaths).
.

i personally do not think for many its about removing the risk of them in open..... BUT it is more about balancing the risk for all. right now it is the player in the PvP metabuild who is risking nothing. the fact that they may as well be invincible to all intents and purposes even in high sec space is why many of us hate it... esp when these same players - many of whom were caught cheating a few months back but are sadly coming back again with their new builds now after having replaced their confiscated toys - are the ones calling the PvE players cowards etc from "hiding" from their guns.

when ALL the risk is carried by the players who are minding their own business, then the system is broken.

To entice everyone into OPEN, maybe add a toggle onto the right panel where you can set a "no interaction" mode and it keeps players from being able to interdict, crash into or shoot you. Basically, just turns the clipping off. NPCs act the same, so essentially the player is in solo "mode" but in the open world. Over time, seeing the other player ships and seeing how 99% of the player base aren't A-holes, the solo player may want to interact, wing up, and start moving over to open.
.

perosnally i would not be interested in seeing "ghost ships" or having magic bullets do no damage when i play.... i would rather just steer clear of open as that just makes open nonsensical and implausible for a whole different bag of reasons.

my main reason for playing ED is verisimilitude .... that is not in open as it stands right now where a player can sit and blow ships up with no effective deterrent for hrs on end just because "its a human player i can spoil their game". (PG is not perfect but its the best ED can manage)...... but ghost ships and the like are even worse imo.....

 

[Stinja]

... we are MISSING the extra modes we were meant to have...

I don't think we are missing the modes

There were meant to be additional modes available from the Main Menu, someone will undoubtedly correct me if wrong, where players / FDev could enable rules on those modes.

As for no missing modes, i'd love an "Emergency Channel" mode. Where players could join this mode (aka PG) and the rules would be:
- registered Fuel Rats would see every CMDR on the galaxy map (with filters available to limit for performance)
- Rats could click to see a CMDRs fuel status, hull status and O2 status
- CMDRs could ping for fuel, and have higher visibility (eg: blink orange for Fuel needed, red for Oxygen warning)
- non-Rats would have all dots on radar as solid, and player history and bandwidth command would be disabled in this mode (you can hunt, but no help )
- an additional non-wing beacon could be dropped, which any registered rat could see and drop on without needing to be winged

Might be more rules for this mode, i'd have to ponder more. Missing mode IMO though

 

[Crank Larson]

There were meant to be additional modes available from the Main Menu, someone will undoubtedly correct me if wrong, where players / FDev could enable rules on those modes.

The only missing mode that I'm aware of was offline mode. What else is missing?

Your example makes no sense to me. You can already use a private group if you need help from the Fuel Rats. I certainly wouldn't want any development time spent on implementing the things you've suggested, as they would benefit a minority of players. Adding features such as an emergency beacon to the game could have some merit, but that kind of thing certainly doesn't require any new mode.

 

[Crank Larson]

when ALL the risk is carried by the players who are minding their own business, then the system is broken.

But it isn't. You can minimize risk, or even turn it around and build a battleship yourself. But your complaint seems to be that you can't travel around in Open in a paper plane without any risk. I agree with that - but I don't agree that you should be able to.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

But it isn't. You can minimize risk, or even turn it around and build a battleship yourself. But your complaint seems to be that you can't travel around in Open in a paper plane without any risk. I agree with that - but I don't agree that you should be able to.

trust me all my ships are reasonably specced..... but NOT insane ENG build because i refuse to do that.
but, people keep talking about the victims what they do wrong to minimise their risk... without addressing WHERE is the risk for the god rolled (which still exist from people i have spoke to) PvP ships?

before you say, well then, get a band of mercs together and hunt down said players.....

that is just it, the game mechanics are not there in game to support it and even if they were, if the ship is one of the metabuild eng up to the nines ships well.......

there is NO risk for the pvp metabuild. it takes many many minutes to take down such a ship. videos have shown FOUR ships firing on 1 "apex" pvp ship and after maybe 30s of sustained fire the shields were barely dented. rather than trying to explain the hoops the victim must jump through, 1st show me the hoops the agressor must go through, and then we can talk about if the risk is balanced.

sure... there may be a build to directly counter this... (i am not a PvPer because i do not like PvP, and ED was a game sold where this would be rare and with real consequences for the player who chose to go into PvP against clean Pilots Federation members.)

with this in mind your solution of to beat them gotta join them and build your own PvP metabuild ship does not work.

( ** by "reasonably specced i mean all my ships have at least engineered heavy duty light armour and most of my ships have A rated shields usually with 1 Shield cell bank and usually 1 resistance booster and 1 capacity booster to shields - again i simply refuse to fill every slot with SCBs and hull reinforcments, my ships are all fit for purpose and "PvP" is not a career in ED lore.)

 

[Jack Schitt]

The only missing mode that I'm aware of was offline mode. What else is missing?

Technically not "modes" but rather an extension of function for private groups, which for ED amounts to the same thing. From the KS FAQ:

How does multiplayer work?

There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.

We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.​

ISTR there was also something about this in the DDF but the search is doing silly things this evening so I can't reliably confirm or deny that.

 

[Crank Larson]

that is just it, the game mechanics are not there in game to support it and even if they were, if the ship is one of the metabuild eng up to the nines ships well.......

there is NO risk for the pvp metabuild. it takes many many minutes to take down such a ship. videos have shown FOUR ships firing on 1 "apex" pvp ship and after maybe 30s of sustained fire the shields were barely dented. rather than trying to explain the hoops the victim must jump through, 1st show me the hoops the agressor must go through, and then we can talk about if the risk is balanced.

Why should risk be balanced? There is no way to balance a ship that someone has spent literally days engineering to the max, and a ship that someone hasn't. But this is an edge case anyway - I don't believe that a large number of people do this, so the chances of encountering such builds aren't very high. Even when you do, I don't see why the risk should be balanced - it isn't in real life. Your option in this case is try to run. I have been in these situations. I did try to run. I failed. Next time I won't be running, but the odds will still be stacked against me.

It will be interesting to see how the new Pilots Federation fine pans out.

Technically not "modes" but rather an extension of function for private groups, which for ED amounts to the same thing. From the KS FAQ:

How does multiplayer work?

There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.

We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.​

ISTR there was also something about this in the DDF but the search is doing silly things this evening so I can't reliably confirm or deny that.

But we already have groups, and some of them (e.g. Mobius) have their own rules. I still can't see what is missing?

 

[Jack Schitt]

But we already have groups, and some of them (e.g. Mobius) have their own rules. I still can't see what is missing?

This:

• When creating a group the player creating it can decide how the group will react to crimes committed by players while in the group

• The player can decide to either count only crimes committed against other players, or against AI ships
• The player can decide if a player who earns a bounty is either kicked back into the all players group, or can be kept in the private group

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/6300-Elite-Dangerous-Groups

 

[Mouse]

Ahhh we want guaranteed escape now. Thank you for making your position clear.

Really? You are going to put words in his mouth now to try and gain points for a discussion?

 

[Crank Larson]

This:

Ah, fair enough. It's just rule enforcement that didn't make it in. All it really means, though, it that it has to be done manually (which already happens in Mobius - if someone breaks the rules, report them to Mobius with evidence, and they won't be there anymore).

 

[Mouse]

It seems to me, the core issue with solo is that people want to fly but not be bothered by enemies attacking them or even friendlies asking to wing up. Maybe they have limited time, like just 20 mins to pop in, or something.

To entice everyone into OPEN, maybe add a toggle onto the right panel where you can set a "no interaction" mode and it keeps players from being able to interdict, crash into or shoot you. Basically, just turns the clipping off. NPCs act the same, so essentially the player is in solo "mode" but in the open world. Over time, seeing the other player ships and seeing how 99% of the player base aren't A-holes, the solo player may want to interact, wing up, and start moving over to open.

So it's more of a catching flies with honey rather than vinegar type of approach. Entice PvE out of solo/Mobius and into open with the stipulation that they can cut off the PvP connection when THEY want to.

Your perception of why people are in solo are rather off. There are a myriad of reasons to be in solo.. and even in solo enemies still attack.. just not the over engineered pvp person who wants to just blow someone else up ...

 

[Mouse]

I don't have a combat ship. But all my ships have shields, G5 dirty drives, and weapons. Flying without is just asking for trouble. It's a bit like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. It's all fine until your head meets a stationary object while travelling at speed... I don't want to wear a helmet... But it's stupid not to (in fact, it's stupid not to ride in full motorbike gear).



Yes. But if people want to do that for the sake of more cargo space, then they must understand the additional risk they are taking (rather than complain when their paper plane catches fire and they lose everything...).

The thing is they are not complaining that their "paper planes", as you put it, are catching fire. They are rightfully complaining that those that are catching them on fire are doing so without any real consequences at all. As others have pointed out... the burden is completely on the ones being attacked, they have massive cost... the aggressor doesn't even get a slap on the wrist.