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

[Agony_Aunt]

I have a question.

How many threads will have to be made before this is addressed?

I mean just because we cant make the change now. It does not mean The Powers That Be cant talk about it. Its not like it will spoil anything coming from the aliens. These threads just keep going and going with no resolve.

This is certainly going to be a give and take subject.

But you all have to remember we are all on the same side. It needs to be beneficial for both. Rewarding someone for their efforts is important. You already have the choice to play the game out of OPEN play and still experience the whole game with the same reward. So you already know that. Then when you play in Open for that extra RISK. Shouldn't the trader be rewarded for their efforts?

Shouldn't a bad guy be rewarded for stopping a trader at a CG? We should be able to pick sides. Kind of like we did with the Multi crew session for Solome. Then you get points for blowing up CMDRS and you get points for Delivering Cargo(Which should pay more imo because of the initial investment from credits per trip.) Then the opposing side will rack up bounties and cause other pvp ships from the other side to hang out and defend the traders.

Bam meaningful PVP at a CG. Which is where everyone hangs out anyways since powerplay is dead.

You could even lock it up where people have to be forced to swap sides every week. Who says the Feds dont get deliveries?

Anyways, just one of many spitballed ideas. But allow people have to context. "OMG HE BLEW ME UP FOR NO REASON". Give them the reasons. And then they will understand. And this OPEN SOLO AND PRIVATE Nonsense will be over once and for all.

Opposing CGs are a nice idea, even those with the possibility of rewards for PvP kills. Just as long as there is no obligation to do that from Open.

 

[Kruger]

no it wont because ultimately you are fundamentally missunderstanding there are lots of different reasons for the plays wanting different groups etc

mine comes down to this....... For me ED is not a "PvP" game.... there are not players and npcs.... there are pilots federation members and non members.

all players are members of the pilots federation, and the pilots federation, lore wise, does NOT condone its own members blowing each other up without a damn good and legal reason (because they pay the insurance for one). lore wise you can be ejected from the pilots federation for misbehaving

having "points" for blowing up players therefore makes no sense at all to me, it just does not fit in the lore of the game because it would essentially get someone kicked out of the PF all together..

Now i am not saying there should not be optional missions to attack PF members, and to defend from PF members for those who really want it (with players from both sides knowing what they are getting into for signing up)... but i just would not take them on because it breaks how i play the game, and i would like to be able to filter them so as never too see them (again because they break the lore imo).****

if this was warthunder, WOT or a BF arena shooter sure, but to me the entire notion of PvP is at odds with how ED is set up.

but not everyone plays the game like i do so they do not care about the lore........ I am not saying your ideas are bad, just that even with them in, it wont stop many just not wanting to do the whole PvP thing.....

in all honesty i think ED would have been better not having open at all, and just concentrating on lots of solo play content, which scaled ok for friends who want to play together in small groups, kind of like borderlands. But ED is not my game and i am biased... My views very much reflect how elite 4 was 1st proposed many years before elite dangerous which iirc was a single player game (that again iirc you could invite mates into for co-op) with a multiplayer competitive companion game, which was essentially i imagine like CQC.


So long as FD try to cater for such wildly different play styles this will always be a spicy discussion.

**** 1 exception to this where it could work... imo warzones.

in warzones imo we are doing military operations. The military trumps the pilots federation. imo in a warzone where we are flying a military factions colours so it should not be a PF matter. we should be supplied with a ship - which gets better as we build up rep and trust in that military - and if we lose the ship we do not have to pay insurance, but we lose rep with the military and depending on how many ships we lose vs how many we blow up, they may give us worse ships or better ships.

but the important thing here is. The only ships in warzones should be ships flying military colours... ie NOT our own ships, we are not committing crimes as its a war, and we are not forcing the PF to pay out insurance.

You bringing lore into this discussion made me smile and makes me wish for an actual PvE Open mode over Mobius (Nothing against Mobius, but it is separated into three different groups). But, I digress.

 

[Crank Larson]

See, if games are not balanced and if EVERYONE doesn't get a fair chance at winning the game (so to speak) - then people don't play. Simple.

That shows a misunderstanding of this game. You cannot win Elite Dangerous, it is not that kind of game. It is balanced, as everyone has the same opportunities within the same sandbox.

Yes it is a game, one that people invest a lot of time and energy in... only to have it ripped apart by some dipstick for lulz... and yes I say you are blaming the victim because you seem to forget that people want to play with other people and not have that crap happen so for some solo isn't really appeasing because they are alone. PG's work but are struggling because so many people want into some like Mobius that he's having to create more groups to handle the over 40,000 commanders (I think) that have joined. Even those in Open that expect some PVP... there is a difference in PVP vs what some of these "saltgrinders". They don't go after pilots who may be able to put up a good fight.. they go after newbies or traders/explorers... anyone they think they can trap and destroy without them having a chance to defend themselves or even escape.

I'm not blaming anyone - we have a sandbox in which players can essentially do what they like. There are nice people, and there are nasty people, just as in real life. There are ways for nice people to deal with nasty people, or you can avoid them entirely by using another mode. It's quite a simple concept, really.

In E: D anything could kill you (well, not anything, but there are many things other than other players that can). People don't seem to mind if something in the game kills them, but when another player does it's a different matter. Why? Losing your ship is the same in either case - you should always be prepared to deal with that, and you should always be looking to minimise any losses if/when that happens.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

That shows a misunderstanding of this game. You cannot win Elite Dangerous, it is not that kind of game. It is balanced, as everyone has the same opportunities within the same sandbox.

lol i dare say Jockey understands how ED is *supposed* to be back when it was 1st launched more than you and I put together!!! (I am not saying I *always* agree with him, but he pretty much always has sources to back up his view)

I say before FD change the total direction of the game I (we) bought I would like to see them 1st make the game they sold me (us)... and THEN if it doesn’t work, consider tweaking.

but, we cant know if the kickstarter DDF game which was detailed is no longer relevant in the modern market until FD at least try to deliver that game 1st.

 

[NeilF]

I have a question.

How many threads will have to be made before this is addressed?

I mean just because we cant make the change now. It does not mean The Powers That Be cant talk about it. Its not like it will spoil anything coming from the aliens. These threads just keep going and going with no resolve.

This is certainly going to be a give and take subject.

But you all have to remember we are all on the same side. It needs to be beneficial for both. Rewarding someone for their efforts is important. You already have the choice to play the game out of OPEN play and still experience the whole game with the same reward. So you already know that. Then when you play in Open for that extra RISK. Shouldn't the trader be rewarded for their efforts?

Shouldn't a bad guy be rewarded for stopping a trader at a CG? We should be able to pick sides. Kind of like we did with the Multi crew session for Solome. Then you get points for blowing up CMDRS and you get points for Delivering Cargo(Which should pay more imo because of the initial investment from credits per trip.) Then the opposing side will rack up bounties and cause other pvp ships from the other side to hang out and defend the traders.

Bam meaningful PVP at a CG. Which is where everyone hangs out anyways since powerplay is dead.

You could even lock it up where people have to be forced to swap sides every week. Who says the Feds dont get deliveries?

Anyways, just one of many spitballed ideas. But allow people have to context. "OMG HE BLEW ME UP FOR NO REASON". Give them the reasons. And then they will understand. And this OPEN SOLO AND PRIVATE Nonsense will be over once and for all.

Yes, the game needs to orchestrate/offer meaningful PvP. This could be done by dedicated OPEN CGs. This could be done via the BGS offering sensible missions around a couple of specific systems. This could be done by Powerplay offering (interesting) tasks pitting CMDRs against each other.

OPEN CGs
OPEN only CGs are offered which allow CMDRs to sign up to sides/causes for the duration of the CG. These should offer a myriad of scenarios. eg:-

• Delivering X to Y, or preventing X from arriving at Y.
• Delivering X to Y, or preventing stealing (pirating) X and selling it elsewhere.
• Escorting NPC ships to asteroid stations in X through asteroid fields, or preventing NPC ships from reaching asteroid bases.
• Flying a fighter to defend a ship being repaired, or flying a figher and attacking a ship being repaired.
  [*}Even more sexy mechanics such as entire station blockade mechanics where you exit SC a lot further out, and have to then fly to the station in standard flight. Obviously CMDRs could be running the blockade or enforcing the blockade.
• etc...

^All of the above could be deemed legal or illegal accordingly. ie: To be ignored or considered by the new C&P (Karma) mechanic.

BGS
The background sim could dynamically offer PvP orientated missions to push CMDRs togethor using the kinds of scenarios above. ie: Thus creating a couple of sensible hot spots for sensible reasons offering interesting PvP gameplay.

Powerplay
Powerplay could utilise the kind of scenarios above (in OPEN) as measurable tasks to affect outcomes.

Thargoids
With new tools available, what's going to make a Thargoid invasion more interesting? Random interdictions and reskinned CZs? Or signing up to missions/CGs to escort passengers ships through a Thargoid blockade to evacuate stations/settlements? Or defending a damaged ship against Thargoids for X minutes before it can escape?


All of this was basically covered in my C&P (Karma) proposal specifically aimed at "penalising the bad", and "promoting the good" - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-Reputation-quot-and-quot-Risk-Hot-Spots-quot

Of course, that thread has been needlessly locked now, so no discussion can now take place about it... Great!

 

[Stinja]

OPEN CGs
OPEN only CGs are offered which allow CMDRs to sign up to sides/causes for the duration

Will only work if they can fix people port blocking / disabling uPnP, and "being in OPEN, alone" to do these Open CGs.

 

[NeilF]

Will only work if they can fix people port blocking / disabling uPnP, and "being in OPEN, alone" to do these Open CGs.

Sorry, you've lost me there?

Are you suggesting people purposefully manipulating things so they are in OPEN alone? If so, yes, that would be a concern, but I'm sure addressable in someway?

 

[thirstyfish]

Sorry, you've lost me there?

Are you suggesting people purposefully manipulating things so they are in OPEN alone? If so, yes, that would be a concern, but I'm sure addressable in someway?

It is easily done, takes five minutes to configure your router. However, there really isn't a way for FD to get around what an individual does on their router. As it stands, Solo mode does the exact same thing. All modes run off the same servers, only difference are the allowed P2P connections. Blocking P2P connections and going into open is the exact same thing as just going into solo.

I think Stinja has seen me state that I could turn open into solo with ease using this method, but I don't think anyone has done this yet because there is no point, just go to solo.

However, an "open only CG" would be rather against one of the fundamentals of the game: 3 game modes, all of them in the same galaxy, same BGS, all pretty much the same except for allowed player interaction. This has been the case since day 0 of this game, and an open only cg would probably play out like the salami (intentional misspelling) event, a few people have some pew-pew fun, and everyone else is just unaware due to instancing quirks.

 

[racer1]

It is easily done, takes five minutes to configure your router. However, there really isn't a way for FD to get around what an individual does on their router. As it stands, Solo mode does the exact same thing. All modes run off the same servers, only difference are the allowed P2P connections. Blocking P2P connections and going into open is the exact same thing as just going into solo.

You could monitor players that never accept P2P connections when playing in open. I'm sure there are other ways too.

 

[thirstyfish]

You could monitor players that never accept P2P connections when playing in open. I'm sure there are other ways too.

This is all academic anyway, I doubt FD would ever have an open-only CG. I think the participation in that would be abysmal. I know I wouldn't. And it would undermine the entire concept behind the modes too: play the game your way. Open has never been the "one true mode." No one mode is any less of a viable choice than another, and this should be the case for CGs too.

 

[Sylveria]

Well, as I replied to another growing thread regarding "Open" play, I realized this megathread is still growing strong. Good to see everyone's still here! LOL

Unsurprisingly, a valid argument as to why people's choices should be restricted and forcing everyone into Open play has yet to surface.

It would behoove FD to just make the choices available to "Open PvP, Open PvE, and Solo" thus clarifying explicitly the choices available.

Until then, I shall continue to be vigilant in responding to these discussions with logic.

 

[Jack Schitt]

You could monitor players that never accept P2P connections when playing in open. I'm sure there are other ways too.

But who does the monitoring? The problem is that the server has no arbitration ability; it just looks at the various clients connected to it, assigns one of them as instance controller and offers the others' IPs as possible P2P nodes. Everything else is done client-side. And if it's client-side it can be fiddled with in all sorts of potentially interesting ways. Even if you could "enforce" P2P connections when the instance forms, there's nothing to prevent a client severing that connection a few seconds later, or throttling it to the point that it disrupts the other clients.

 

[yodajedifishmaster]

the only problems with a thread lock for hotel california is after its done you cant rep the mod for the witty comments...

 

[racer1]

This is all academic anyway, I doubt FD would ever have an open-only CG. I think the participation in that would be abysmal. I know I wouldn't. And it would undermine the entire concept behind the modes too: play the game your way. Open has never been the "one true mode." No one mode is any less of a viable choice than another, and this should be the case for CGs too.

Every survey I've seen suggests most people still play in open.

But who does the monitoring? The problem is that the server has no arbitration ability; it just looks at the various clients connected to it, assigns one of them as instance controller and offers the others' IPs as possible P2P nodes. Everything else is done client-side. And if it's client-side it can be fiddled with in all sorts of potentially interesting ways. Even if you could "enforce" P2P connections when the instance forms, there's nothing to prevent a client severing that connection a few seconds later, or throttling it to the point that it disrupts the other clients.

Sure but that is a whole other level of interference compared to tweaking your router settings.

 

[Sylveria]

the only problems with a thread lock for hotel california is after its done you cant rep the mod for the witty comments...

True, but you can always rep the author for another post they've made- it's not like the rep is displayed with the post you intended it for anyway.

The point of rep is that it's directed toward the author of the post, after all.

 

[Ian Phillips]

the only problems with a thread lock for hotel california is after its done you cant rep the mod for the witty comments...

You could always blame T.j

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Every survey I've seen suggests most people still play in open.



.

Bad science there if you think that is necessarily balanced.
1) I propose the types most likely to post on online surveys are likely to have a biast towards MP online MP games and open is the only unlimited population mode

2) many players would not feel comfortable jumping through hoops to joing big PGs. Not to mention that PGs are fractured and not advertised outside of online community.... Maybe more players across ED player base ARe in open.... But a Reddit survay for instance is far from useful for anything other than saying the majority of Reddit posters who are bothered to vote play in opem

 

[Phosphora]

Every survey I've seen suggests most people still play in open.

I just surveyed myself. 100% of Phos wants to play in Solo.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Crank Larson]

I just surveyed myself. 100% of Phos wants to play in Solo.

Did you get independent verification? You know we can't trust your results until you've done this...

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

You could always blame T.j

I blame T.j... (someone has to)