Modes Reimagining Open Mode

[MadDogMurdock]

Obviously there have been loads of posts about Open, PP, Open PvE, etc. recently.
Sifting through the chaff and gathering my thoughts I came up with the following ideas to perhaps create an unlikely one-size fits all Open:

1. By default, all players are part of the Pilots' Federation and their ships are fitted with an IFF device that prevents fire on other PF members with an IFF device.

2. To provide meaningful PvP, this device is partially disabled when a player commits to one of the following scenarios:
--- Picks a side in a CZ - the IFF device allows fire on PF members who have picked the other side.
--- Pledges to a PP Power - the IFF device allows fire on PF members pledged to an opposing power.

IFF would also allow fire in other circumstances, such as a player being Wanted, etc.

3. A player can disable their IFF device at specific locations (e.g. Black Markets, Engineers, something new):
--- The IFF on that ship can never be reenabled
--- IFF disabled ships are identifiable on the scanner
--- Disabling the IFF is a crime - a passive ship scan by a PF member displays a Wanted status with a PF Bounty
--- Disabling the IFF device revokes the PF insurance scheme - no rebuy available
--- Significant loss on selling the ship

How far does that go to providing something for everyone?

The missing piece is support for genuine piracy - some kind of workaround that only works in Anarchy or Low Security environments?

 

[Bigmaec]

You still can get shot up by super-engineered FdLs and therefore the effect on open will be negligible imho.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

You still can get shot up by super-engineered FdLs and therefore the effect on open will be negligible imho.

You mean if they've disabled their IFF?

 

[Bigmaec]

Yeah, as long as you can still get shot up non-consential there won't be many people switching to open or agree with such a mode.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Yeah, as long as you can still get shot up non-consential there won't be many people switching to open or agree with such a mode.

Yup, agreed that some players don't want that at all.

However, I think one of the main issues is the lack of balance between risk and consequence.
Some people don't switch to Open because their risk has little or no consequence for their attacker. C&P doesn't really do it I don't think.
In this scenario, the risk is still there, but now there is also significant consequence for the attacker - their ship is in Ironman mode - lose it and it's gone.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Obviously there have been loads of posts about Open, PP, Open PvE, etc. recently.
Sifting through the chaff and gathering my thoughts I came up with the following ideas to perhaps create an unlikely one-size fits all Open:

1. By default, all players are part of the Pilots' Federation and their ships are fitted with an IFF device that prevents fire on other PF members.

2. To provide meaningful PvP, this device is partially disabled when a player commits to one of the following scenarios:
--- Picks a side in a CZ - the IFF device allows fire on PF members who have picked the other side.
--- Pledges to a PP Power - the IFF device allows fire on PF members pledged to an opposing power.

3. A player can disable their IFF device at specific locations (e.g. Black Markets, Engineers, something new):
--- The IFF on that ship can never be reenabled
--- IFF disabled ships are identifiable on the scanner
--- Disabling the IFF is a crime - a passive ship scan by a PF member displays a Wanted status with a PF Bounty
--- Disabling the IFF device revokes the PF insurance scheme
--- Significant loss on selling the ship

How far does that go to providing something for everyone?

The missing piece is support for genuine piracy - some kind of workaround that only works in Anarchy or Low Security environments?

In my humble opinion it is about time we all accept the following:

There is no single solution that will please everyone.

Your solution will not work for:

1) people who dont like the very idea of people shooting at them.
2) people who dont like the draconian punishment for criminal players
3) people who like the 'tenseness' of Open, where people are nice because they want to and danger can strike at any moment when interacting with others.

Feel free to remedy any of this, and I'll guarantee you other groups will then be displeased. There is no way to make Open a 'one size fits all' mode. It wont happen. Ever.

 

[ethelred]

Respectfully I disagree because flags of any sort do not add to gameplay.

Open mode should remain “anything goes” BUT, If you don’t like behaviour X, then gameplay Y should counter it.

So high security systems should result in extreme force being applied to any clean CmDR (or NPC) kills.

Bounty hunting needs to be more viable.

The emphasis should be on stealing cargo, rather than destroying CMDRs.

Solve problems with gameplay, not arbitrary “permissions”.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Some people don't switch to Open because their risk has little or no consequence for their attacker.

Which is patently false. If a notorious 'griefer' kills your little PvE ships the following will happen:

1) The victim's rebuy is drastically reduced.
2) The bounty on the attacker is drastically increased (if my corvette butchers your T9, I'll easily get 5 million per kill added to my bounty!)
3) Docking rights are revoked, and if the player keeps it eventually the majority of the bubble will be locked.
4) Insane OP uber-ships will haunt the attacker.
5) All the above wont stop until the attacker either pays his bounty (the total sum of all full insurance fees he caused, even those not payed by the victims due to the price reduction!) or his forced to pay it at a detention center.

There are already very serious penalties and costs to killing people in Open, far more than the victim faces.

Respectfully I disagree because flags of any sort do not add to gameplay.

Open mode should remain “anything goes” BUT, If you don’t like behaviour X, then gameplay Y should counter it.

So high security systems should result in extreme force being applied to any clean CmDR (or NPC) kills.

Bounty hunting needs to be more viable.

The emphasis should be on stealing cargo, rather than destroying CMDRs.

Solve problems with gameplay, not arbitrary “permissions”.

This. But I do feel many people in Solo/PG dont appreciate the changes to C&P.

 

[GroundxZERO]

I don’t think I’d like this. I could be wrong but my gut tells me no. I’m getting a Mobius vibe from it, even though it would save on the accidental fire in hazres operations.

I’m beginning to feel like this was never an open VS solo/pvp VS pve rift. At the heart of it I think we still have the same old problem of FD not having enough “content” in their game to justify it being an mmo of sorts. For others though, the game is perfectly fine, and no additional meaningful content is necessary. I could be wrong but it wouldn’t surprise me if I’m right.

I don’t want to derail the op so that’s all I’ll really say on it. I think the IFF idea could work for squads but I don’t want to see it implemented as a “rule mechanic.”

 

[Marra Morgan]

Excellent posts from Sleutelbos and Ethelred.

You do the words better than me!

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Respectfully I disagree because flags of any sort do not add to gameplay.

Open mode should remain “anything goes” BUT, If you don’t like behaviour X, then gameplay Y should counter it.

So high security systems should result in extreme force being applied to any clean CmDR (or NPC) kills.

Bounty hunting needs to be more viable.

The emphasis should be on stealing cargo, rather than destroying CMDRs.

Solve problems with gameplay, not arbitrary “permissions”.

It's a change of emphasis.
Our membership of the Pilots' Federation means absolutely nothing as it stands.

The suggestion would put far greater weight on us all being members of an exclusive club.
This would also make that choice to be an outcast an active choice with a permanent consequence highlighted for all to see (at least for that ship).

sleutelbos may have a point about C&P - my impression is anecdotal from the forum having not been penalized myself.

IFF devices are real - these things already exist so it's not a big leap to imagine this as more than an arbitrary permission.

 

[ethelred]

I agree completely mad dog, and of flags had been in at the beginning then there would be no issue.

As it is, they weren’t, like there wasn’t an Open PVE mode.

IFF does exist of course, but then private citizens are unlikely to be able to afford a Eurofighter.

For open, let’s look at the behaviours we want to encourage, those we wish to make more difficult and then add gameplay to achieve that.

Flags are a quick fix that seems to me to be an easy plaster/band aid rather than adding to the game.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I agree completely mad dog, and of flags had been in at the beginning then there would be no issue.

As it is, they weren’t, like there wasn’t an Open PVE mode.

IFF does exist of course, but then private citizens are unlikely to be able to afford a Eurofighter.

For open, let’s look at the behaviours we want to encourage, those we wish to make more difficult and then add gameplay to achieve that.

Flags are a quick fix that seems to me to be an easy plaster/band aid rather than adding to the game.

To be fair - in the game setting we are the private citizens that can afford Eurofighters - that's pretty much what Elite is about.

I would love better gameplay too, however FD themselves seem to be choosing bandaids as their preferred solutions - just trying to direct them to some plasters that might be useful while not requiring huge development efforts.

But - this thread has been moved to the graveyard - so be it, I should have gone for the Suggestions board.

 

[Bill Clement]

Good for dealing with murder hobos, but griefers are endlessly creative and inventive. A better 'solution' would have been FD taking a firm stand against griefers from Day 1. Refunds for gits who repeatedly take the mickey out of clearly stated terms and conditions, some of which could have stated words to the effect of 'do things that we consider to be intended to cause grief and harass or deliberately provoke other players in order to spoil their enjoyment and we will shadowban you or terminate your access to the game'.

They weren't willing to do that and they'll always be several steps behind those predisposed to take enjoyment from spoiling other people's enjoyment. As are pretty much every other game company and social media outlet...

The current options to block players or enjoy alternative game modes restricted to friends or just a single user give people who can't be bothered with griefers a reasonable way to avoid the neds. For all the bluster I don't hear much from PGs and Solo players demanding change to other game modes- the 'debate' mainly seems to come from entitled open mode players demanding game changes to get more victims into their game mode. Most of what I read is concerned forum members pouring cold water on schemes to make their preferred mode less attractive.

Your ideas are good, but the problem isn't having rules to prevent people being unpleasant to each other, it's having unpleasant people wanting to be unpleasant in the first place. The griefers are here to stay. We either learn to put up with them (I try to tolerate them on the odd occasion one of them tries to disrupt my evening) or we avoid them. PGs seem like the best way to play Elite to my mind. I've had more fun playing with groups of friends in ad hoc, invitation only groups than playing alone or playing in open. The company of friends trumps splendid isolation or a public space where noisome, irritating neds are likely to show up the moment anything interesting or fun happens.

 

[Hooplah]

--- The IFF on that ship can never be reenabled ...

Even if a player goes back to a clean non-committal status? How about purchasing a new ship? I don't understand this part of your suggestion.

In case some were wondering I assume your IFF acronym is for 'Identify Friend or Foe".

Regards

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Good for dealing with murder hobos, but griefers are endlessly creative and inventive. A better 'solution' would have been FD taking a firm stand against griefers from Day 1. Refunds for gits who repeatedly take the mickey out of clearly stated terms and conditions, some of which could have stated words to the effect of 'do things that we consider to be intended to cause grief and harass or deliberately provoke other players in order to spoil their enjoyment and we will shadowban you or terminate your access to the game'.

They weren't willing to do that and they'll always be several steps behind those predisposed to take enjoyment from spoiling other people's enjoyment. As are pretty much every other game company and social media outlet...

The current options to block players or enjoy alternative game modes restricted to friends or just a single user give people who can't be bothered with griefers a reasonable way to avoid the neds. For all the bluster I don't hear much from PGs and Solo players demanding change to other game modes- the 'debate' seems to come from entitled open mode players demanding game changes to get more victims into their game mode. Most of what I read is concerned forum members pouring cold water on schemes to make their preferred mode less attractive.

Your ideas are good, but the problem isn't having rules to prevent people being unpleasant to each other, it's having unpleasant people wanting to be unpleasant in the first place. The griefers are here to stay. We either learn to put up with them (I try to tolerate them on the odd occasion one of them tries to disrupt my evening) or we avoid them. PGs seem like the best way to play Elite to my mind. I've had more fun playing with groups of friends in ad hoc, invitation only groups than playing alone or playing in open. The company of friends trumps splendid isolation or a public space where noisome, irritating neds are likely to show up the moment anything interesting or fun happens.

Good for dealing with murder hobos, but griefers are endlessly creative and inventive. A better 'solution' would have been FD taking a firm stand against griefers from Day 1. Refunds for gits who repeatedly take the mickey out of clearly stated terms and conditions, some of which could have stated words to the effect of 'do things that we consider to be intended to cause grief and harass or deliberately provoke other players in order to spoil their enjoyment and we will shadowban you or terminate your access to the game'.

They weren't willing to do that and they'll always be several steps behind those predisposed to take enjoyment from spoiling other people's enjoyment. As are pretty much every other game company and social media outlet...

The current options to block players or enjoy alternative game modes restricted to friends or just a single user give people who can't be bothered with griefers a reasonable way to avoid the neds. For all the bluster I don't hear much from PGs and Solo players demanding change to other game modes- the 'debate' seems to come from entitled open mode players demanding game changes to get more victims into their game mode. Most of what I read is concerned forum members pouring cold water on schemes to make their preferred mode less attractive.

Your ideas are good, but the problem isn't having rules to prevent people being unpleasant to each other, it's having unpleasant people wanting to be unpleasant in the first place. The griefers are here to stay. We either learn to put up with them (I try to tolerate them on the odd occasion one of them tries to disrupt my evening) or we avoid them. PGs seem like the best way to play Elite to my mind. I've had more fun playing with groups of friends in ad hoc, invitation only groups than playing alone or playing in open. The company of friends trumps splendid isolation or a public space where noisome, irritating neds are likely to show up the moment anything interesting or fun happens.

You are right - the reasons you've mentioned are largely why I play in PG.
I dunno, I'm just spitballing really.

Some of the players that we're talking about claim to be the apex predators in the game.
I'd potentially be more prepared to share their environment if I thought they were putting their money where their mouth is.
The price for making themselves outcasts with the PF, would be ironman mode for the ship they are using - that might at least provide a little food for thought, and maybe some different choices.

Probably too little too late though.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Even if a player goes back to a clean non-committal status? How about purchasing a new ship? I'n don't understand this part of your suggestion.

In case some were wondering I assume your IFF acronym is for 'Identify Friend or Foe".

Regards

Correct - this is a ship-specific device, not a commander one
Once that ship has Identify Friend or Foe disabled, it cannot be reenabled and significantly affects its resale value.

The player can of course fly and buy other ships with IFF on.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Correct - this is a ship-specific device, not a commander one
Once that ship has Identify Friend or Foe disabled, it cannot be reenabled and significantly affects its resale value.

The player can of course fly and buy other ships with IFF on.

Then I am even more confused. So I can have a troll ship I use to gank people with, and a normal ship to grind money, do CGs etc. Whats exactly the punishment here? I am not going to lose my griefship if I only need to stay alive for a few minutes each time. The current system seems harsher...

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Then I am even more confused. So I can have a troll ship I use to gank people with, and a normal ship to grind money, do CGs etc. Whats exactly the punishment here? I am not going to lose my griefship if I only need to stay alive for a few minutes each time. The current system seems harsher...

You lose your gank ship and it's gone - no insurance.
Disabling the IFF marks that ship permanently, not just after commiting a single crime.

It's a giant red flag - this guy is potentially out to get you but if you get them, it's costly for them - in credits and engineering time.

 

[nrage]

In this scenario, the risk is still there, but now there is also significant consequence for the attacker - their ship is in Ironman mode - lose it and it's gone.

You need to make this point clearer in the OP. I read it three times and didn't realise that is what this meant "Disabling the IFF device revokes the PF insurance scheme"