The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Morbad]

I still don't get the Hotel California reference. You can't leave Hotel California, but all of these threads are voluntary and the soulless minions of orthodoxy are always threatening to remove people from them.

Also, what's with people using 'mechanic' when they mean 'mechanism'? A mechanic is someone who repairs machinery.

Remember how hard it is to read emotion on the Internet.

All of my posts should be read with the understanding that the only emotion I'm capable of is some permutation of carnal lust.

Want both? Great, feel free to choose for yourself.

I don't really like either of the choices presented. Solutions of this type feel like they are rooted in a presumption that tolerance of PvP interaction is tantamount to actively seeking it out.

Would it help to prevent griefing?

No.

Would be a legitimate gameplay mechanic and if yes - in which scenario?

What do you mean legitimate? If that was the mechanism and it was working as intended it would be 'legitimate'. It still wouldn't make any sense and would not be something I'd consider a positive addition to the game, because I cannot envision how shutting down one's vessel would make it harder to destroy.

To surrender is to put one's self at the mercy of another. A mechanism that then makes it physically more difficult to be attacked is the opposite of that.

This sounds like a contrived way to negate any context-observant need to account for hostilities by providing a pause button while someone waits out the 15 second log off timer, a way to stall while waiting for reinforcements, another risk-free way to bait people, or just a waste of time in most any scenario an NPC would use it in.

 

[Old Duck]

Title should be:

The Open Horizons 3.8 v Open Horizons 4.0 v Open Odyssey 4.0 v Groups Horizons 3.8 v Groups Horizons 4.0 v Groups Odyssey 4.0 v Solo thread​

 

[ethelred]

I feel like we need a big brother style voiceover evey 50 pages or so, so we remember what we're arguing about.

Previously on Hotel California:-

• Choose the right mode, silly billy
• Blocking breaks my instancing
• What is actually so bad about a PvE mode?

Nonsense corner:-

• OPEN ALL DAY EVERYDAY ALWAYS AND FOREVER
• "I flew to Deciat in an unshielded hauler in Open with 100 billion in explorer data and a meta alloy, and now I am cross"

And our old favourite armchairs:-

• Psycho Vs Carebear - the only modes that count
• Open is empty thread cunning ploy by gankers to STEAL YOUR CHILDREN

 

[zikolach]

Also, what's with people using 'mechanic' when they mean 'mechanism'? A mechanic is someone who repairs machinery.

It is unrelated to the topic... English is not my native language, but if you look at Wikipedia you can find Game mechanics article.

I cannot envision how shutting down one's vessel would make it harder to destroy.

Pouring water on electric wires (or coffee on keyboard) can illustrate the difference. In any case it seems to me (much) better than "shadow" ships one could fire and fly through.

No.

Why?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I feel like we need a big brother style voiceover evey 50 pages or so, so we remember what we're arguing about.

Previously on Hotel California:-

.... don't forget these:

Modes - The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

There have been several threads on the topic of switching between solo/private groups/open. This thread is going to be the merge target for all other threads on the topic, no matter how 'unique' the thread creator may think their thread is. Creating a poll is not unique. Posting in here has...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Modes - The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes': Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Modes - The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes': Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in...

forums.frontier.co.uk

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

Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes': Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[zikolach]

"I flew to Deciat in an unshielded hauler in Open with 100 billion in explorer data and a meta alloy, and now I am cross"

You can easily skip "100 billion" part - losing 2 meta alloy containers already hurt

What if FDev added another tutorial mission - how to use submit-high-wake and small bonus in insurance cost for new players who finished this mission?

 

[ethelred]

You can easily skip "100 billion" part - losing 2 meta alloy containers already hurt

What if FDev added another tutorial mission - how to use submit-high-wake and small bonus in insurance cost for new players who finished this mission?

Yes, exactly this. I'd also prefer a "get to the station without being interdicted" tutorial to teach people about using the scanner

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Now that we have a new thread does this mean we have to go back through all the bad ideas from all the other threads? <reads messages so far, open-PvE, PvP flagging> - ah that's a yes.

Anyway I don't understand why the thread title is all "vs" - I thought effectively neutering debate by lumping everything in here was all about enforced peaceful coexistence of the modes? And doesn't it prejudice debate as adversarial (which is the reason why the merry-go-round never stops). Weird given that the "rules" seem to be designed to cosset people.*

Anyway, it won't matter, open-o... er I mean nature finds a way.


*okay I reread the rules and they're reasonable actually . I think "easy mode" is the only one I have an issue with since that can merely be an expression of imbalance between the modes in terms of efficiency in performing PvE tasks when player opposition is strong and flying in open.

 

[Darrack]

But on a plus note we get to reuse all those old memes

O7

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

But on a plus note we get to reuse all those old memes

O7

T7 all the way

 

[EdzUp]

Just a bunch of raw ideas...

What if players (and NPC) had an option to "surrender" by shutting down ship (thrusters and/or powerplant) and avoid/prevent (or make much more difficult) ship destruction?

Would it help to prevent griefing? Would be a legitimate gameplay mechanic and if yes - in which scenario?

First scenario - 2 players start to fight each other. One of them is low on hull and decide either to attempt to high wake or shut his ship down. In latter case the win/kill could be immediately counted towards the other ship. The condition to count it as a fight is opening fire from both sides.

Another scenario - one player interdicts another. The other (trader) looses/submits and immediately disables his ship (and therefore surrenders). The attacker may attempt to hack target or steal cargo from the disabled ship. An activation of disabled ship could take 1-2 minutes and an attempt would be visible/audible (similar to start of FSD charging).

Would it force gankers/griefers to play more pirate-like style?
Could be there a punishment similar (or equivalent) to rebuy in these scenarios for players exploiting this mechanic?

E.g. downloading personal effects from the disabled ship computer to sell on black market or use instead of own to identify itself as someone else. The player having its personal effects compromised would have to pay to clean it as soon as he can to avoid getting bounties and fines issued to him.

Should it be still a way to destroy disabled ship? If yes, why and how?

What if hull would be much more resistant against damage and the normal way to destroy other ships would be destruction of the modules. E.g. it could be new civilian armor type which sacrifice ship maneuverability, but having much more hit points.

In addition power plant destruction (as currently is) may be blown up, but shutting it down would lead to inability to target the module and therefore damage it (at least as effectively).

Hitting the drives could lead to uncontrollable flight instead of current stopping of the acceleration. E.g. one could disable thrusters as a countermeasure to missiles targeting the thrusters (breaking missile target lock).

You do realise the actual idea of 'your common or garden variety of griefer' is simply to destroy your ship or anyone elses ship as quickly as possible as to avoid any punitive measures, by 'shutting' down your ship you might as well click the self destruct and save them the ammo whilst your at it.

For me one of the attractions of Open is that its free of abstractions and rules, in that if you arrive in one piece (or several) depends on a whole gamut of things you can do and change before you attempt anything. PvP 'wins' are simply you doing what you want to do, and adapting until you achieve that.

In reality only making ED credit poor, and making criminals lives harder* so high tech equipment is harder to come by will you balance out ganking (since criminality without purpose- i.e. the booms, would be counter productive). So pirates, BGS players etc would be good 'bad' because they are making money and sometimes want people to live, while gankerrs ganking all day will simply wither.

*criminals need gameplay as well, something ED does very poorly.

Exactly, if criminals were forced out of high security systems to mid or low security systems (dependent on the pirates skills ) it would mean there would be relatively safe areas around Superpower home systems and high traffic systems and the fringes of human space would be lawless zones which would be a pirates paradise. It would be in these zones where murders and other such elements would thrive.

To make it harder give police gunboats (High tech annys) more often and in High sec they arrive in ten seconds, Mid sec twenty seconds, Low sec a minute and anarchy your on your own

 

[Morbad]

Pouring water on electric wires (or coffee on keyboard) can illustrate the difference.

So the assumption is that ships are destroyed after suffering sufficient damage because they are active...e.g. a reactor breach or something?

That's not entirely unreasonable, but shutting everything down still wouldn't change the fundamental structural integrity of the vessel, or anything in it. Nor is powering down synonymous with surrender.

If we had the option to turn off the power plant, I could see loss of power plant integrity never resulting in the spontaneous destruction of a vessel, but that's about it. At zero hull integrity, the pilot still auto ejects and the ship still falls apart (or self-destructs, possibly for insurance reasons).

Why?

Because griefing isn't ship destruction itself, doesn't always end in ship destruction, nor is every example of ship destruction involve griefing. Ship's that are able to be destroyed isn't a problem to be solved.

What if FDev added another tutorial mission - how to use submit-high-wake and small bonus in insurance cost for new players who finished this mission?

I'm all for better tutorials, but most people wouldn't play them, and if they were made mandatory, there would be many more people complaining about having to actually earn those Pilots Federation credentials than there would people complaining about ganking or greifing.

Learning how to pilot a fantasy spacecraft is way too big an ask for players of a fantasy spacecraft flying game.

 

[Sylveria]

I still love the idea of "reverse iron man".
Disabling one's ship vs destroying one's ship would force players to have a bit more trigger discipline.

 

[Chaparral]

So I contend this thread is misnamed.
The issue that pops up with greater frequency than "modes", is the PVE / PVP partitioning in Open.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Just to subscribe the thread...

 

[ethelred]

Ok, today's debate.

Open only, but it's Ironman. Who's in?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ok, today's debate.

Open only, but it's Ironman. Who's in?

Fill your boots.

Not for me though.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Ok, today's debate.

Open only, but it's Ironman. Who's in?

Or you make it like X Wing and its up to you to eject just in case your ejection system fails (or have a hardened escape pod / use your SLF as a lifeboat).

But again, its far too late in EDs life for it to be a useful and interesting thing- IMO.

 

[ethelred]

It was kind of in jest, but how would a ejection system work? Original elite you could scoop escape pods? Can't see that working in this version?

 

[rootsrat]

Ok, today's debate.

Open only, but it's Ironman. Who's in?

With the current unbalanced PVE/PVP? And lacking C&P?

No thanks.