Modes [Suggestion] How to incentivise open play and make it relevant

[CMDR_Elver]

It's still altering what is essentially the base game depending on how many other game clients one chooses to connect to. And that's not what most people paid for when they bought this game.

Do you consider SOLO to be the "base game" then? I have not seen ED described like before. It don't see the "base game" being altered by any of the proposed, tweaking missions rewards and closing loop holes has been going on since day one.

And this is where I think most of the puzzlement and misunderstanding between forum-ites lies.

There are players who have bought the game and just want to play it as-is, who see no reason or have no wish to participate with other players. And there are players who think that by connecting with other players in a particular instance of the base game they're located at, that this somehow represents 'greater risk' and hence the base game should behave differently.

The first group will be puzzled by the second group's opinion on this, because there are many factors which affect the experience of playing the base game, not just "will that other player blow me up?".

But this is the argument made by the OP quite clearly there should be no need for puzzlement. Players can play in SOLO all they want that is fine but it is clearly obvious that OPEN comes with a greater risk. This has been stated numerous times by SOLO players on this thread. Even then it is probably not as much as a risk as most SOLO players think, it is easy to avoid griefing by going to quieter areas of the bubble, most people quiet friendly or just getting on with their own game in my experience.

https://i.imgur.com/I4dk7Cd.png

I'm not entirely sure when ED refers to itself as an MMO that it's not just stretching the definition of one somewhat.

Think it is been quite clearly stated in is MMO, multiplayer features, squadrons on the way, community groups etc.

Since the base game's BGS is played by the movement of PvE tokens, and since every player can move those tokens in any client connectivity mode, it could be argued that yes, this is a 'massively-multiplayer online' game.

MMO does not necessarily have to mean there's a massive amount of players online at the same time and you can see them all at once in your scanner. There could in fact be 1000's of players in one star system yet due to there being PC, XBox, PS4 players, PLUS an instance max player level of 32 clients, with many instances you aren't in, you're only ever going to see a handful of players at any one time.

So the game IS an MMO - it's just that you'll not see more than a handful of players at any one time.

Regards

Well yes but you can't deny that the game has been designed as MMO with fully fledged game features for players to interact in the same space or instance. Numbers is an interesting one as well as you can have move than 32 players in a instance it is just not supported.

 

[Roybe]

Why was this post moved out of the suggestions subforum please? Just because people are having a debate in the thread does not invalidate the OP as being a suggestion.

Because the basis of the suggestion is a change to the way the modes work?

 

[Ian Phillips]

Why was this post moved out of the suggestions subforum please? Just because people are having a debate in the thread does not invalidate the OP as being a suggestion.

Because the discussion has turned into a modes discusssion. Simple.

If you want to keep the discussion where it was originally posted, then stay on topic.

The topic has changed, and so has the forum to match that.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Do you consider SOLO to be the "base game" then? I have not seen ED described like before. It don't see the "base game" being altered by any of the proposed, tweaking missions rewards and closing loop holes has been going on since day one.

It is quite clear to anyone that the base game is what you see when you select Solo. As I keep saying, all Open is, is Solo/Base game with the ability to connect to other game clients (and hence see other players).

But this is the argument made by the OP quite clearly there should be no need for puzzlement. Players can play in SOLO all they want that is fine but it is clearly obvious that OPEN comes with a greater risk. This has been stated numerous times by SOLO players on this thread. Even then it is probably not as much as a risk as most SOLO players think, it is easy to avoid griefing by going to quieter areas of the bubble, most people quiet friendly or just getting on with their own game in my experience.

Risk of being blown up by another player is not a valid reason to change the base game for those players not connecting to other players.

Think it is been quite clearly stated in is MMO, multiplayer features, squadrons on the way, community groups etc.


Well yes but you can't deny that the game has been designed as MMO with fully fledged game features for players to interact in the same space or instance. Numbers is an interesting one as well as you can have move than 32 players in a instance it is just not supported.

Indeed. You can't naturally have more than 32 players in any one instance - it has to be forced via trickery and it takes a lot of time to set up. This only backs up what I stated earlier.

 

[Lateralus]

Because the basis of the suggestion is a change to the way the modes work?

But it is a suggestion first and foremost, aimed at the developers who may be seeking good ideas... They probably wont look here for that.

Because the discussion has turned into a modes discusssion. Simple.

If you want to keep the discussion where it was originally posted, then stay on topic.

The topic has changed, and so has the forum to match that.

I'm not a moderator, therefore I cannot control what people talk about in the thread. If the OP is a suggestion, then the subsequent comments should not result in it being hidden away in a dusty corner where the post's original purpose would potentially be diminished.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

PP wasn't designed for PVP it was designed for all modes, hence it being available across all modes.

I definitely saw and interview with Sandy when PP was introduced where he stated PP was for consensual PvP. No can't source the quote but just like that. Probably there is another quote saying the opposite aswell no doubt. It would be good to get some clarification on this.

A lot of solo/group players left open as a result of experiencing being the content of PVP open players, if the PVP open players find themselves feeling lonely and leave then open may become populated again. We know they are a minority of the playerbase so it won't have much impact on numbers either way.

That is a fair appraisal, C&P aswell as a number of other reasons has not help keeping a good balance for all playing styles this is widely acknowledged, hence the OP. Maybe all the griefers will go to Star Citizen if when that gets finished. The point is if players are leaving OPEN then we should try and fine ways to make OPEN better or more balanced.

People would just log out and back in again to achieve the same result.

Good point. This could probably be solved.

You change modes via the main menu, so that's not even close to being clogging.

What happens when you enter the main menu from the game? You loose connection, if in combat, this is clogging. The changing mode jumping back in puts you back to where you are in the game.

Hasn't Sandro already said no to that, besides which you could just switch to open to get missions/cash in.

Sandy might well of done, but that doesn't stop people having debateing or coming up with alternatives. The point of the mode saves would stop the exploit in this regards, as you can only pick up the PP material in OPEN. Jumping to SOLO would start you from a completely different save point.



Can you source PP being designed for PVP.

There are players who did not refund the game when offline was dropped because solo was intended to replace it, penalizing them now isn't an option. FDEV will never do it.

There is a quote somewhere will have a look. I don't see this as penalizing they still have the game as they want to play it. Offline thing is a red herring as it would be practical impossible to not interact with the servers and getting all the game features. Offline would be very limited, SOLO technically allows players to jump to any system and interact with the BGS, take missions etc. Nobody is suggesting changing SOLO!

 

[sovapid]

It's the way it's been designed, and the majority of Frontier's customers are happy with this arrangement, bar a few with opinions similar to yours.

Your assertion, that the majority are happy with this arrangement, is based on what? FDev polling information? Educated guess? Wild guess?

 

[Rampant]

But this is the argument made by the OP quite clearly there should be no need for puzzlement. Players can play in SOLO all they want that is fine but it is clearly obvious that OPEN comes with a greater risk. This has been stated numerous times by SOLO players on this thread. Even then it is probably not as much as a risk as most SOLO players think, it is easy to avoid griefing by going to quieter areas of the bubble, most people quiet friendly or just getting on with their own game in my experience.

I think you are being a little disingenuous here.

It has been peddled as a truth that Open "is more risky/dangerous/etc.".

That isn't strictly true, and you allude to that yourself.

Firstly, it is more truthful to state that Open *has the potential* to be more risky.

Secondly, it is with great gusto that Pirates often educate the lesser players (or even complain) that it is "really easy to escape" from an interdiction.

Well, either it is risky - *OR* - it is easy to escape. It cannot be both at the same time.

If it takes a gentle dose of engineering and a bit of training to be able to *escape every single time*, which I'm led to believe is true, why on earth are players going to sink their leisure time into engineering (that they don't ant to waste limited leisure time to achieve), and do a bit of "training" (that they don't really want to waste time doing), if the net effect is that they will be able to escape from an interdiction every single time, guaranteed, but in doing so waste their valuable leisure time??? *For the exact same net effect* They may as well just play in PG or Solo, if all they'll do is waste time escaping every single time and not enjoying the process.

If what we are led to believe is true, then there isn't even an argument to segregate the BGS or limit certain things to Open. It's a ridiculous train of doing something they don't want to do, to waste time escaping from an interaction they have no interest in, simply to get to the end of their quest - whatever that might be.


So which is it?

Is Open more dangerous, or is it just a time-sink to circumvent the additional unwanted content?

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[Roybe]

But it is a suggestion first and foremost, aimed at the developers who may be seeking good ideas... They probably wont look here for that.



I'm not a moderator, therefore I cannot control what people talk about in the thread. If the OP is a suggestion, then the subsequent comments should not result in it being hidden away in a dusty corner where the post's original purpose would potentially be diminished.

My suggestion would be to repost the suggestion and send a request to the mods to lock it to prevent it from being derailed? Just report the post to moderators with the request....

 

[Roybe]

Your assertion, that the majority are happy with this arrangement, is based on what? FDev polling information? Educated guess? Wild guess?

To be honest, what the majority wants in any game is irrelevant...the devs have designed the game...and they will ignore what they will ignore...regardless of the numbers of requests for a given feature....obviously, at their own peril....but they also understand their player base and break even points better than the players.

 

[Lateralus]

My suggestion would be to repost the suggestion and send a request to the mods to lock it to prevent it from being derailed? Just report the post to moderators with the request....

Nah, I can't be bothered... I'll just repost it in relation to something else later.

The problem with having it locked it is it will just sink to the bottom of the pile and be lost forever.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

It is quite clear to anyone that the base game is what you see when you select Solo. As I keep saying, all Open is, is Solo/Base game with the ability to connect to other game clients (and hence see other players).

I don't agree that SOLO Mode is the base game I thought they were all supposed to be equal. Multiplayer has many features in built with the game not afterthoughts, they are just rendered obsolete in SOLO, wings for instance. It is not important which mode is the base game anyhow but how to make the modes and the game as a whole better.

Risk of being blown up by another player is not a valid reason to change the base game for those players not connecting to other players.

Isn't that why SOLO exists so players are not at risk of being blown up by other players. Nobody is advocating changing SOLO fundamentally, just balancing up OPEN a bit to account for the reduced risk in SOLO.

Indeed. You can't naturally have more than 32 players in any one instance - it has to be forced via trickery and it takes a lot of time to set up. This only backs up what I stated earlier.

Not sure that is does been forced via trickery and takes time and effort surely this suggest it is ideally meant to be MMO!? Anyway it is not really relevant to the main topic of the post.

 

[Roybe]

Nah, I can't be bothered... I'll just repost it in relation to something else later.

The problem with having it locked it is it will just sink to the bottom of the pile and be lost forever.

Suggestions are like that...you put them in the box...and hope for the best....

 

[Ian Phillips]

But it is a suggestion first and foremost, aimed at the developers who may be seeking good ideas... They probably wont look here for that.



I'm not a moderator, therefore I cannot control what people talk about in the thread. If the OP is a suggestion, then the subsequent comments should not result in it being hidden away in a dusty corner where the post's original purpose would potentially be diminished.

52 pages of discussion is not a suggestion - its a discussion and belongs in a discussion forum.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

I think you are being a little disingenuous here.


It has been peddled as a truth that Open "is more risky/dangerous/etc.".

That isn't strictly true, and you allude to that yourself.

Firstly, it is more truthful to state that Open *has the potential* to be more risky.

You could say that, that would be a true statement! OPEN has human players in it with engineered ships, that might wish to interdict and destroy you, this is a fact. If interdicted, then without a heavily engineered ship and or pliot skill and ability greater than needed to get away from NPC then this entails a much greater risk. SOLO does not have this potential, agreed? However, in OPEN if you can avoid these "griefers" then it is not so bad. Most players in OPEN aren't griefers, the probability of coming across a griefer in OPEN is quite low if you stay away from certain systems and CG. SOLO has none of this potential risk by default. Quantifying the risk depends greatly on how you play the game in OPEN.

Secondly, it is with great gusto that Pirates often educate the lesser players (or even complain) that it is "really easy to escape" from an interdiction.

Well, either it is risky - *OR* - it is easy to escape. It cannot be both at the same time.

This is disingenuous as it conflates the points I was making (see above).

If it takes a gentle dose of engineering and a bit of training to be able to *escape every single time*, which I'm led to believe is true, why on earth are players going to sink their leisure time into engineering (that they don't ant to waste limited leisure time to achieve), and do a bit of "training" (that they don't really want to waste time doing), if the net effect is that they will be able to escape from an interdiction every single time, guaranteed, but in doing so waste their valuable leisure time??? *For the exact same net effect* They may as well just play in PG or Solo, if all they'll do is waste time escaping every single time and not enjoying the process.

Fine play in solo then, that is a valid choice if you don't want to risk interdiction by a Cmdr. I haven't got a problem with people doing this, just you have to accept there is less risk.

If what we are led to believe is true, then there isn't even an argument to segregate the BGS or limit certain things to Open. It's a ridiculous train of doing something they don't want to do, to waste time escaping from an interaction they have no interest in, simply to get to the end of their quest - whatever that might be.


So which is it?

Is Open more dangerous, or is it just a time-sink to circumvent the additional unwanted content?

This is a non-sequitur! Firstly, is OPEN more dangerous than SOLO? Yes, potentially and seeing as this potential does not exist in SOLO then you would have to conclude that is its more dangerous. That doesn't mean to say OPEN is a griefer frenzy or gank fest, as you are far more likely not come across these players but there is a chance.

Secondly, Is it just a time sink to circumvent the additional unwanted content? Maybe, this depends on your perspective as a player and how you enjoy playing.

ta!

 

[sovapid]

Notorious griefer and pvp'er Drew Wager posted this on reddit and is very interesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...on_is_why_did_no_one_at_fdev_came_up/dpkr50p/

Having thought about it I don't think you can have the opportunity for storytelling and emergent content (in open) and have the same story in (private/solo). I fear the modes are mutually exclusive.

In hindsight (a wonderful thing) perhaps we should have had only 'open' mode from the start. However, I would have been 100% against that at the time and would have voted thus with my Kickstarter backing.

Changed my mind in the interim.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Notorious griefer and pvp'er Drew Wager posted this on reddit and is very interesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...on_is_why_did_no_one_at_fdev_came_up/dpkr50p/

Notice how everyone is agreeing with each other? And they are able to voice their opinion there. Instead of here where they are bombarded with walls of text and kickstarter quotes. They dont want to come here because of it. Now a very large portion of the community is at the gates with pitchforks.

Like I told them here on these forums. The community is speaking up. And its not the same 5 dudes showing up yelling "But mah kickstarter" Or "if we cant do it in solo you shouldn't be able to do it either". Its multiplayer for christs sake. Solo is SOLO. That means by yourself and intentionally not playing for others. So in turn, their influence shouldn't get to effect others.

 

[Rampant]

You could say that, that would be a true statement! OPEN has human players in it with engineered ships, that might wish to interdict and destroy you, this is a fact. If interdicted, then without a heavily engineered ship and or pliot skill and ability greater than needed to get away from NPC then this entails a much greater risk. SOLO does not have this potential, agreed? However, in OPEN if you can avoid these "griefers" then it is not so bad. Most players in OPEN aren't griefers, the probability of coming across a griefer in OPEN is quite low if you stay away from certain systems and CG. SOLO has none of this potential risk by default. Quantifying the risk depends greatly on how you play the game in OPEN.



This is disingenuous as it conflates the points I was making (see above).



Fine play in solo then, that is a valid choice if you don't want to risk interdiction by a Cmdr. I haven't got a problem with people doing this, just you have to accept there is less risk.



This is a non-sequitur! Firstly, is OPEN more dangerous than SOLO? Yes, potentially and seeing as this potential does not exist in SOLO then you would have to conclude that is its more dangerous. That doesn't mean to say OPEN is a griefer frenzy or gank fest, as you are far more likely not come across these players but there is a chance.

Secondly, Is it just a time sink to circumvent the additional unwanted content? Maybe, this depends on your perspective as a player and how you enjoy playing.

ta!

Cool.

But the bottom line question remains:

If it is easy to escape an interdiction and it is easy to escape every interdiction, every single time (as it is often preached to us all...), then by direct consequence the Open mode is no more risky than Solo.

This isn't a conflation. It is a simple fact of A leads to B by direct consequence.

If it is true that Open has the potential to b more risky than Solo, then it is clear that it is not possible to escape every single interdiction 100% of the time.

If it is true that any and every player has the basic ability available to escape every single interdiction, 100% of the time (as we are often told), then it is a direct correlation that Open is no more risky than Solo.


So the bottom line question is:

Is it true that interdictions are always escapable, or, alternatively, is it true that Open carries more risk than Solo?


Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Cool.

But the bottom line question remains:

If it is easy to escape an interdiction and it is easy to escape every interdiction, every single time (as it is often preached to us all...), then by direct consequence the Open mode is no more risky than Solo.

This isn't a conflation. It is a simple fact of A leads to B by direct consequence.

If it is true that Open has the potential to b more risky than Solo, then it is clear that it is not possible to escape every single interdiction 100% of the time.

If it is true that any and every player has the basic ability available to escape every single interdiction, 100% of the time (as we are often told), then it is a direct correlation that Open is no more risky than Solo.


So the bottom line question is:

Is it true that interdictions are always escapable, or, alternatively, is it true that Open carries more risk than Solo?


Yours Aye

Mark H

Thats an easy question to answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo

 

[Roybe]

Notorious griefer and pvp'er Drew Wager posted this on reddit and is very interesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...on_is_why_did_no_one_at_fdev_came_up/dpkr50p/

The original ideas for multiplay interactions also seemed to include open groups, similar in idea to Diablo 3...with flag settings for various ways to interact....I would bet we see that before any consideration for Open only game.


Are the modes problematic...a shortcoming of the game? No more or less a problem than the design idea behind what the devs have defined as PVP itself. Regardless of the side of the fence people are on...they are not going away. Because of all of the reasons discussed...none of them are because people are stuck in their thinking or in love with the concept.....it's because the devs designed the game this way...and cannot change these basic designs.