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

[Jack Schitt]

It's a valid point, and I also have no objection to some harsher penalties being given out in certain situations. But they need to be reasonable, and personally I don't think completely banning a player from a system for destroying another one would be reasonable. Of course, hurling system security vessels at said offender would be great.

But only if they stood a more than reasonably chance of defeating them, I guess?

For me it depends on the system. I know it sticks in some folks' collective craw, but I still believe there should be systems that are more or less 100% safe. Sol, Achenar, Alioth at least. A few regional historical capitals. Maybe some PowerPlay systems, so that maintaining control and making them safe for trade would become part of the gameplay. Starter spawn systems (maybe move them to somewhere safer rather than buffing the security of Eravate). Places where violence is met with instantaneous overwhelming force and/or a very long access ban via the permit system. Yes, the permit system is silly. Yes, instant overwhelming NPC force breaks the immersion a bit. But it's not as though the rest of the game is a paragon of verisimilitude.

The biggest problem with this is that the game offers nothing at the other extreme. There are anarchy / lawless systems galore, but there are no warlord-controlled, pirate-infested systems where bounties are badges of honour and a negative superpower reputation is a requirement for entry. And if there were, there are no in-game mechanics to encourage players to consider joining such a clan for anything other than external RP reasons. So I don't think introducing uber-safe systems in the absence of other changes is the answer either. At least not yet.

But I would eventually like to see these extremes in the game, along with all the variations in between. It's not as though the galaxy isn't big enough to support them. I'm sure Sandro said this was also FD's vision back in the day; if memory serves he used a modern city as an analogy, with reasonably safe places and generally shady places and places in between. I'd dig it out if I could find it but the search function is worse than useless at the moment, returning "no matches" for searches I know had hits last time.

 

[Dietger]

In my opinion, changes to Open made (or yet to be made) by Frontier in attempts to persuade more players that Open is the best place to play will very probably mean that Open will change for the worse in the likely opinions of some players even if it improves Open for other players.

Considering where Elite started, a lonely affair since we didn't had the technology. A playground with other players was a dream, I am sure many back then, shared. A pool for all kind of players, even those shying away from pvp seems to be the obvious way. That must be the driving thought, behind the name: ELITE DANGEROUS and the architecture of its OPEN mode. Would splitting Elite in two parallel games workout over time? I think not. I fear, for the integrity of the sandbox idea, conflict appears as a fundamental part therefore. Splitting OPEN, I fear, would weaken the game not safe it.
Unfortunately those of us now loathing the challenge and conflict, eventually forced on them by fellow commanders, seem to have the disadvantage here. Hear is hope, pvp being developed (C&P) further along the OPEN line into something more reflecting, will bring relieve and a safeguard against harassment.

Splitting OPEN in two will have a derogatory effect over time. In short, both OPEN modes becoming a bore to play.
OPEN is a friendly place I meat a lot of great players over time and love the challenge, mostly running away

 

[Robert Maynard]

Considering where Elite started, a lonely affair since we didn't had the technology.

Indeed - all three previous games in the series were single player.

A playground with other players was a dream, I am sure many back then, shared.

For some, certainly.

A pool for all kind of players, even those shying away from pvp seems to be the obvious way.

Obvious, for those that like PvP, possibly. Not necessarily from the point of view of the player that does not enjoy PvP.

That must be the driving thought, behind the name: ELITE DANGEROUS and the architecture of its OPEN mode.

The name is, on reflection, deliberately ambiguous in terms of derivation - the official position is that "Dangerous" refers to the lowest combat rank at which a CMDR would be approached for membership of the Elite Federation of Pilots.

Would splitting Elite in two parallel games workout over time? I think not.

It already has done for over two and a half years now - there's the Open game and the non-Open game in Solo and an unlimited number of Private Groups.

I fear, for the integrity of the sandbox idea, conflict appears as a fundamental part therefore. Splitting OPEN, I fear, would weaken the game not safe it.

Open is already split, i.e. players can play the game and experience and affect the single shared galaxy state, Community Goals, Powerplay, etc. without playing in Open.

Unfortunately those of us now loathing the challenge and conflict, eventually forced on them by fellow commanders, seem to have the disadvantage here. Hear is hope, pvp being developed (C&P) further along the OPEN line into something more reflecting, will bring relieve and a safeguard against harassment.

C&P, karma, Pilots' Federation bounties and the PF Rebuy proposals seem to be aimed at curtailing some forms of PvP rather than developing them.

Splitting OPEN in two will have a derogatory effect over time. In short, both OPEN modes becoming a bore to play.
OPEN is a friendly place I meat a lot of great players over time and love the challenge, mostly running away

From the point of view of the player uninterested in PvP an Open-PvE mode would offer the option of an unlimited population to play among (rather than in Solo or one of the many PvE Private Groups).

Glad that you like Open - it certainly satisfies the needs of some players.

 

[Crank Larson]

But only if they stood a more than reasonably chance of defeating them, I guess?

For me it depends on the system. I know it sticks in some folks' collective craw, but I still believe there should be systems that are more or less 100% safe. Sol, Achenar, Alioth at least

Well, yes. But we do know that NPCs are more than capable of putting up a good fight - they just need to be allowed to do so by FD.

I agree that the security of a system should make a difference. High security should mean exactly that - they should be absolutely swimming with system security vessels that can be deployed to pretty much anywhere very quickly (within shipping lanes - no point for deep space). And most of them should be Dangerous and above. When a crime is reported, they should arrive en-masse to investigate and deal with any offenders.

I've just realised I'm really just paraphrasing what you've written. I pretty much agree with all of it.

 

[sewerratuk]

The name is, on reflection, deliberately ambiguous in terms of derivation - the official position is that "Dangerous" refers to the lowest combat rank at which a CMDR would be approached for membership of the Elite Federation of Pilots.

So if a Harmless noob gets destroyed by an Elite CMDR the new C&P and karma stuff won't apply as said pilot is not part of the Pilots Federation yet

 

[Robert Maynard]

So if a Harmless noob gets destroyed by an Elite CMDR the new C&P and karma stuff won't apply as said pilot is not part of the Pilots Federation yet

Every CMDR is a member of the Pilots' Federation - it's different from the Elite Federation of Pilots.

 

[Faded Glory]

However, these "not fun" encounters don't actually happen that often, and I find them useful to learn from (yes, similar has happened to me). If you have planned things well, the most you'll lose is a rebuy and some stock. If you don't like having to plan for these kind of setbacks, then Open is not the mode you should be playing in.

Even if the players that attacked you had huge bounties put on them, or were banned from the system due to the encounter, how would that help your own situation? You've still lost your ship and stock, etc. You're still in the same position. Other people can still attack you; it could happen again. Again, the answer is not to prevent these things from happening in Open - the answer is to use a game mode that you are comfortable with. And if this kind of setback upsets you that much, then Open is obviously the wrong choice.

Not sure quite where I said any of this upsets me...

 

[Phosphora]

Every CMDR is a member of the Pilots' Federation - it's different from the Elite Federation of Pilots.

Splitters!

 

[willowfan]

Splitters!

Lol, ninja'd

Exactly what I thought on seeing that

 

[Crank Larson]

Not sure quite where I said any of this upsets me...

Not sure where I said it did?

 

[Jack Schitt]

High security should mean exactly that - they should be absolutely swimming with system security vessels that can be deployed to pretty much anywhere very quickly (within shipping lanes - no point for deep space).

Now that is a really smart idea. Back when the DDF were hashing out all of this stuff and during the early iterations of the game, shipping lanes as such didn't exist. There was basically orbit space around worlds, and everything else. So the idea of relative safety was pretty much limited to being between systems.

But the inclusion of influence zones, and especially shipping lanes, sometime around version 2.1 raises an interesting possibility. You could have a system, say Sol, where the space around the inhabited bodies and the shipping lanes directly between them was hyper-enforced by local and system-wide security. Instant, lethal response. But you could also make anywhere outside the shipping lanes much less safe. Not anarchy unsafe, but with a much slower and less well armed response (a bit like the one we currently have!)

Then, when someone is flying their nice safe supercruise route between Sol and Mars, offer them a side-mission or redirection to Earth but only give them a limited time window such that they have to leave the shipping lane if they want to take full advantage. Risk/reward. So someone who wants to play it safe might stay on their course and only collect their original payoff, someone a little less risk averse might fly down the shipping lane to Mars then switch to another shipping lane to Earth and collect a small bonus, while someone willing to push their luck might head straight across deep space to the secondary destination and collect a massive bonus, but only if they make it...

This could scale for other systems, so that shipping lanes in a Low Security system are safer than deep space (but much less safe than in Medium or High Security systems) but deep space itself is effectively lawless.

It's quite a complicated system, so I can't imagine FD rushing to implement it. But once (if) they get criminality and authority response balanced between systems, I think this would also add a level of action and consequence to flights within systems which can't be a bad thing.

Ooh, here's a further idea that just popped into my head (I can't see this being popular but hey, I'm on a roll): How about we do all of the above, but in High Security space we also implement a supercruise speed limit for the shipping lanes? Want to be protected? Use the space highway but be limited in your trips per hour. Want to get there quicker? Go off-road on a parabolic trajectory but take your chances in deep space...

The HUD would also need an upgrade to help find the shipping lanes. Right now it's easy to leave one, not so easy to get back to it.

Also, if any of this is already in the game I apologise. But if it's there it's in a form so diluted that it's not offering much variation in my PVE game and is making not a jot of difference to the PVP. In fact what little conversation I can find on the subject seems to offer anecdotal evidence that the chance of NPC interdictions increases within the shipping lanes, the exact opposite of how it should be IMO.

 

[Dietger]

Good to know about the name's heritage Maynard. I didn't know.

I think we agree ad least here, when I say OPEN exists parallel. While you are right about the fact that the new to come roles and mechanisms are a regulation, I fail to see why this isn't a part of the ongoing overall development of OPEN and private multiplayer groups?

Good luck with OPEN/PvE. I am curious how this turns out in the end. Would help if Frontier showed some real numbers.

I suspect OPEN to be the main course for most commanders though.

 

[Faded Glory]

It's quite a complicated system, so I can't imagine FD rushing to implement it. But once (if) they get criminality and authority response balanced between systems, I think this would also add a level of action and consequence to flights within systems which can't be a bad thing.

Not wishing to be negative, but that is kind of complicated, and the same result (in gameplay terms) should be able to be achieved with the current system security levels. High ranking missions should have a destination of low security or anarchy system and the appropriate rewards, low ranking ones should send players to high or medium security systems. The risk for reward can then be offered by redirecting to a lower security system.

And frankly, while I have no aversion to combat, I'd like to see more logic behind pirate attacks. I find it kind of unsatisfying how pretty much every mission has the "Hostile ships might be sent against you", and yet it's utterly random whether you will meet any opposition at all, regardless of mission rank. Why is a delivery mission Elite, and thus require a high ranking pilot if there is no opposition? High ranking missions should always face opposition, and the chance of random pirate attacks should be high in low security and anarchy space, and low(er) in medium and high.

It's common sense really, and I can only assume it's difficult to achieve with the procedural generation of missions, otherwise I can't really see why FD wouldn't do it.

 

[Sylveria]

In terms of "risk"... something to take into consideration-

Risk is completely subjective and intangible as a metric for basing major game mechanics around. What some consider "risky" or difficult, others may consider to be "easy".

Much easier to base major game mechanics around something more tangible and less subjective. (such as known reputation/karma based on actions of a player)

Food for thought.

 

[Mouse]

To be fair to Jockey (I'm sure he is capable of defending himself), you might be taking his words just a tiny bit out of context...

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.

4x PvP combat ships, pulling over a single T9 and killing it for giggles - without any sort of penalty, isn't fun gameplay for the T9.

He's clearly referring to balance in combat, and to be sure, even in a sandbox you can win (or lose) a fight.

But you are absolutely correct, most contributors to this series of mega threads that support equality of modes have said many times that ED isn't a game that can be won, or that even has an end game. Some contributors from the "open is the only way..." side of things though, well, let's just say some of them definitely seem to think that it's possible to 'win', at least it would be if they could shoot everybody.

Couldn't have said it better myself... heck probably no way I could have said it so well

 

[Jockey79]

That shows a misunderstanding of this game.

You seem to misunderstand not only my point but also the definition of the word "game"

You cannot win Elite Dangerous, it is not that kind of game.

Actually, it depends on your whole reason for playing the game to start with defines if you can "win" or not.

I play to be sociable with my real life friends... so any game session that isn't constantly interrupted with disconnects is a "win" for us.
I also set myself goals within the game, I "won" when I got my Anaconda, I "won" when I got my Cutter.....

You can "win" in this game - depending on why you play.

I'll give you a moment to cook up some humble pie.........

It is balanced, as everyone has the same opportunities within the same sandbox.[/quote}

Actually, no we don't have the same opportunities in Elite.

Some folks have experience from prior versions of the game, so they have an advantage from those who never knew those versions.
Some folks have debilitating illnesses that prevent them from certain types of gameplay, so they cannot play some aspects of the game.
My mate in Wales has such a poor internet connection, he has never been able to play in a Wing of 4 (his max is 2, including himself) - so he misses out on a lot of multiplayer.

Fact is, Elite has never put any person on equal footing - because circumstances throws off that idea right BEFORE we hit play on the launcher.

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.

And you failed to understand something about the mechanics of the game;

"Nice" people cannot "deal with" nasty people, not unless those "nasty people" let them..... here's a hint - the "nasty people" also mode switch.
So unless that "nasty person" allows someone to try and deal with them, the "nasty person" ALWAYS gets to choose their encounters, the nice people do not.

Anyone claiming that you can "win" a sandbox game such as Elite Dangerous is wrong. Of course, it is always possible that I am wrong, but you need to explain how. So go on, how do I win the game?

See above.....

And also, not only can you "win" in the game (depending on why you play the game) - but you can also "win" on the forums.

I've survived 4 threads, over 30,000+ posts over 2 years attacking the mode system and attacking me for defending it..... if you want to "win" here, I suggest you read the past threads and the "Wall of Information" as well as the Kickstarter information and DDA archive. Because trust me, you're not going to think up an argument that hasn't already been featured in the S.O.G series

I'm winning in game, and out of it

 

[Crank Larson]

I've survived 4 threads, over 30,000+ posts over 2 years attacking the mode system and attacking me for defending it..... if you want to "win" here, I suggest you read the past threads and the "Wall of Information" as well as the Kickstarter information and DDA archive. Because trust me, you're not going to think up an argument that hasn't already been featured in the S.O.G series

But I don't have a problem with the mode system in the slightest. Where did you get that idea?

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

But I don't have a problem with the mode system in the slightest. Where did you get that idea?

So... why. are. you. here?

 

[MarkAusten]

So... why. are. you. here?

You can check out any time you want but...

 

[Crank Larson]

So... why. are. you. here?

Why not? I don't understand the question, it's a public thread in a public forum.

Why are you here?