Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In a game where other players are optional on a session by session basis, why would mode switching be considered to be a problem to be solved?
Do "purple-haired heroes" scare everyone into Solo?
The fact that those who take pleasure in shooting random CMDRs are peeved about the presence of the non-Open modes, means the non-Open modes are working as intended.
It's just a game fellers, just pixel space ships. No need to twist those panties because you can't see some other kids when they are playing the game the way they want to.
It's just a game fellers, just pixel space ships. No need to twist those panties because you can't see some other kids when they are playing the game the way they want to.
I want it my way! And if I can't get it other shouldn't have their way neither!
Why does solo need capital letters?
Solo (capital is correct as it starts a sentence) is just one of the three modes any player is free to choose at will - ED is not another shoot-em-up online game so comparing them is pointless, surely?
Those who utilise all modes ,as do I, do so as the game is designed that way - no issues
My friend opened a Bar in a busy town. Every night, very few people came so he went to the council.
'I see loads of people going to bars and drinking and dancing every night, but not mine, you need to make it obligatory that everyone comes to my bar!'
'What, but that's their choice'
'No it isn't, its mine'
Suggestions of change the music, change the drinks, change the décor, change the door policy, change the dress code, change the staff if they are putting people off, ask people why they wont come to your bar - all went unheeded and he just kept demanding that people be forced to go to his bar. Strangely the more demanding and childish he became, the less people listened.
'I see loads of people going to bars and drinking and dancing every night, but not mine, you need to make it obligatory that everyone comes to my bar!'
'What, but that's their choice'
'No it isn't, its mine'
Suggestions of change the music, change the drinks, change the décor, change the door policy, change the dress code, change the staff if they are putting people off, ask people why they wont come to your bar - all went unheeded and he just kept demanding that people be forced to go to his bar. Strangely the more demanding and childish he became, the less people listened.
Why do people move from open to solo under certain circumstances and could that be a problem?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I strongly suspect it's that they don't always want to engage in PvP - in a game where PvP is entirely optional. Open is the only game mode with an unlimited population - and players may choose to play in it in the hope of meeting friendlies - then leave it when they've had enough of the unfriendlies.
Whether, or not, that constitutes a problem depends, I expect, on ones preference (or lack thereof) for PvP.
Why people move from any mode to any other mode is their prerogative. Compare it with: why do certain players shoot random other players?
It's funny that one is protected with: it's within the rules, while the other doesn't get to use the same justification
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The choice and preference of each player whether or not they want to continue to play with another player has precedence over the choices and preferences of those who may want to play with them.
Again, 'optional' is no argument. The fact that you can get attacked in open remains.
The problem with this, I see is, same with combat logging, an abuse of the consequence free mode switching, instead of adapting to the situation.
I think both is a problem.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The fact that any player can leave the game, at any time, subject to a 15 second delay also remains.
Those seeking to engage others in PvP can't force others to continue to engage in it should those others not wish to.
..... which is consistent with a game that has been designed around the fact that PvP is optional.
Last edited:
As I just said in another thread that compares ED to other MMOs, other MMOs separate PvP from PvE. I'm sure Tamriel is considered a "dangerous" place, but level 200 griefers cannot seal club level 1 players as they escape Coldharbour. Using "ED is a dystopian future" as an excuse to demand that everyone play in Open at all times and submit to all forms of ganking and abuse, well that's just beyond silly, it's borderline stupid. 
And it definitely does not make for a good gaming experience.
And it definitely does not make for a good gaming experience.
I dont fully agree with that, as there is the notion that how people use features of a game can be unintended. From my perspective, it seems FD has always assumed people to have a 'primary mode', and allow them to switch for certain reasons. For example, "I am mostly a solo player, but at times I want to do a CG in Open." Or "I am mostly an Open player but sometimes I am in a PG with a mate when I want some simple co-op fun.". What they dont seem to have intended as much is the almost-exploity behaviors such as "I am a big scary griefer but do all my mat-grinding in solo because I dont like the consequences of my actions".
Its the same with PvP: while the general concept is obviously part of Open, not all forms of PvP are. Which is why over the years FD has changed/added the game in such a way that some forms of PvP (which were considered trolling/negative behavior) were removed or made harder to do. So while mode changing is always within the rules, it doesnt mean the rules result in the intended actions and behaviors. And as such, sometimes the rules need to change. FD has changed things to have PvP better match how they want it to be, and certain other things (the escape timer, mode switching) might at some point see some changes too.
...but has a designed meta game add-on for PvP interaction. It is a mess, if you ask me. This optionality of ED kills a lot of its significance. (<-Does this sentence make any sense?)
While that is subjective, I do feel that 'is it a good experience?' should be the sole determining factor when designing a game. I dont care if something matches the lore, supports your immersion, is perceived as realistic or any such arguments: if the resulting gameplay isn't fun, it should be changed. One example would be that there should be 'safe systems', or ultra-max security systems. Just make it about as crime-free as possible, with instant-teleporting godmode-OP security ships. I dont care it isn't realistic, it allows for a diverse approach in play styles. 'PvE' players can hang around in such systems in Open, whereas people who prefer a more 'dangerous' experience can go to less safe systems. I go to anarchy systems? Sure, grief me as much as you want! I want to casually fly biowaste from Earth to Mars? A calm experience it is.
And therein lies the crux of the matter.
Some consider the fact that every ship comes fitted with 2 tiny guns reason enough to justify this solsly being a PvP game...
Others consider those same guns to be useful against NPC's...
Which is right?
I have to admit I only understood part... Maybe that is just me though
It's not the same as combat logging, since combat logging is against the rules. Instead of combat logging the user should have switched to a mode where there is no need for combat logging. Mode switching should be the solution to combat logging.
Mode switching is consequence free by design, so it's not possible to abuse this. Furthermore, since every single player has the same option to mode switch at their disposal, the mechanism can not be unfair.
I disagree.
I'm not so sure about not having intended that. I see no problem if the big scary griefer decides to do his mat gathering in solo. It's funny when that big bad griefer posts on this forum how solo is an exploit though. But that just makes the big bad griefer a hypocrite.
There's no rule against being a hypocrite
The form of PvP I was talking about, shoot random CMDRs, however is a legit form of PvP. I'm not sure which form of Open PvP you're talking about.
So, the bottom line is, what is the unintended behaviour with regard to mode switching?
Speaking of rules, I'm pretty sure there are no "rules" (as in, you'll get banned by doing this) for station ramming, but does Frontier even have an opinion on this? I personally see it as exploitation of a weakness in the game, as nobody is going to tolerate someone using a vehicle to kill innocent people in a parking lot, nor would a "loitering is punishable by death" station allow RAMMING of other ships on purpose. I suspect Frontier just doesn't know how to write code to differentiate intentional ramming from accidental fender-benders.
I personally will block any and all station rammers (the code may not recognize them, but I sure do). Still, I wonder if anyone at Frontier has ever commented on this officially or "off the record".
I personally will block any and all station rammers (the code may not recognize them, but I sure do). Still, I wonder if anyone at Frontier has ever commented on this officially or "off the record".