No, I just mean that since most of my play is in PG and since PG can also give me the Solo option (by making my own PG), I would choose that mode if I was going to be restricted to only one. As a member of a very large PG (Mobius), my guess is that many others would make the same choice. The idea of restricting everyone to only one mode therefore looks like it would have the net effect of removing people from Open.
Modes A Solution for Board Hopping
- Thread starter Skip Rockbounder
- Start date
No, I just mean that since most of my play is in PG and since PG can also give me the Solo option (by making my own PG), I would choose that mode if I was going to be restricted to only one. As a member of a very large PG (Mobius), my guess is that many others would make the same choice. The idea of restricting everyone to only one mode therefore looks like it would have the net effect of removing people from Open.
They are not there today anyway, wouldn't make much difference. However it will filter people deliberately going to SOLO for undermining PF and PP.
But, Sandro has suggested that (and it was just a thought) those taking measures in PP open might get a multiplier* as their actions are 'more difficult' simply by the nature of the players in open..
Difficult one!
* to clarify... the multiplier bonus would in no way be a player/personal benefit, simply to their chosen Power.
No it wouldn't. Solo <> pg with one member.
To be honest though I did mention 'Two' Commanders, so I suppose Open would be the logical 2nd Commander, though I do wonder how much time at the helm he/she would enjoy.
Ofcourse it would. If a player started playing in OPEN they can't jump to SOLO when forced with any direct opposition like they are doing today.
I reckon that you are right, there. If I had to make a choice that is what I would do. I don't want to play with Spoilers. Which is why I only go into open when I am in the Black
Not a complete wind up, I have seriously suggested removing Open mode.
It did have the effect of stopping some folks requesting removing Solo / PG, as more folks were in favour of my "fix" for this issue.
As Solo players don't moan about what the other modes are doing, PG players don't either - removing Open removes all the reasons people have to moan
(This was my serious argument I put forward in the old S.O.G. Mega thread series we had before this sub forum. It gained some traction for a while)
But as folks have said, without the advertised game feature of being able to select whom we play with on a session by session basis, you'll see a lot of folk opt for PG due to its versatility.
Also, regarding "listened to their arguments and explanations with interest , wonder, and complete confusion" = Welcome to Frontiers vision of gaming. This is how some of us have felt for 4 years
Sandro also said there were no plans to do this, which was wise at the time as just before he made that comment in the 2.1 live stream, we had informed him in a forum thread a few days before how any bonus to open only, could be gained by players without having to play open properly or see another player in open.
It's a massive flaw with them choosing peer to peer networking as the model for the game.
Not that anyone would need to since they changed the in game block feature to "block" players from your instance. You can play open and just "block" anyone who opposes you.
Not a complete wind up, I have seriously suggested removing Open mode.
It did have the effect of stopping some folks requesting removing Solo / PG, as more folks were in favour of my "fix" for this issue.
As Solo players don't moan about what the other modes are doing, PG players don't either - removing Open removes all the reasons people have to moan
(This was my serious argument I put forward in the old S.O.G. Mega thread series we had before this sub forum. It gained some traction for a while)
But as folks have said, without the advertised game feature of being able to select whom we play with on a session by session basis, you'll see a lot of folk opt for PG due to its versatility.
Also, regarding "listened to their arguments and explanations with interest , wonder, and complete confusion" = Welcome to Frontiers vision of gaming. This is how some of us have felt for 4 years
Sandro also said there were no plans to do this, which was wise at the time as just before he made that comment in the 2.1 live stream, we had informed him in a forum thread a few days before how any bonus to open only, could be gained by players without having to play open properly or see another player in open.
It's a massive flaw with them choosing peer to peer networking as the model for the game.
Not that anyone would need to since they changed the in game block feature to "block" players from your instance. You can play open and just "block" anyone who opposes you.
This is just another nail in the coffin of what's called meaningfull PvP in this game. Back to ganking it is.
Like you ever had any intent to stop.
The nail in the coffin is the section of PvPers that have your mentality. I mean if you're part of a group called NaCl, it doesn't really give me any confidence that they will be good little boys if only Frontier would throw them some toys. Your ganking is a hurdle to overcome before any moves can be made on meaningful PvP.
You are a detractor to both the game and PvP.
I am, correct, but there are many people who just gank out of boredom without dedication and they sort of sitting on the fence. They would stop the minute they have something else to do.
Last edited:
There will always be bored players, PVP and PVE...regardless of what gets added. Once new content is consumed, the next step for people is to go back to boredom mode...and the festivities begin anew.
To the OP, your concern of controlling who a player desires to play with is not warranted. Your suggestion would be similar to requiring a lock to who a player could play with in Diablo 3. Remember, the 'modes' are nothing more than a choice of playing with random people (Open), friends (Private Group), or Solo (no interactions). Basically, it is nothing more than a matchmaking flag.
Your title is conflating this issue with the idea of changing modes to refresh the mission board. Glad this was finally cleared up!
Last edited:
5 minute lockout would be fine, stop the worst of the board flipping.
Not that i care much about it, but i do think its partially the reason why FD can't have missions boards populated with more missions, too much overheard when people are flipping like crazy.
But sometimes, for me, board flipping is a necessity. As we are a tourist system, sometimes 100% of missions are to Colonia. Usually over half are. This means often we are looking at just a few local missions, none of them useful. Sometimes I have to flip and flip just to get one mission i want to take.
Perhaps a better solution that might help with board flipping is allow people to specify what sorts of missions they want and then the system generates possible missions for them based on the usual factors.
Not that i care much about it, but i do think its partially the reason why FD can't have missions boards populated with more missions, too much overheard when people are flipping like crazy.
But sometimes, for me, board flipping is a necessity. As we are a tourist system, sometimes 100% of missions are to Colonia. Usually over half are. This means often we are looking at just a few local missions, none of them useful. Sometimes I have to flip and flip just to get one mission i want to take.
Perhaps a better solution that might help with board flipping is allow people to specify what sorts of missions they want and then the system generates possible missions for them based on the usual factors.
The board already flips on a 5 or 10 minute timer...it would be better if the board refreshes every time a mission is taken...to another random mission. This could be modified by system population.
I still think of the mission/passenger board as a trucking app. These are currently in use, and update in real time, with offers for drivers to pick up and drop off. Board flipping for missions is just relogging in for an updated list of jobs.
Not sure how much of a drain an immediate update of missions would be. Until something changes...not much else to do to fill mission cards up.
Deleted member 38366
D
Hate to say it, but this man's got it right.
The Mission Board still fails to serve all flavors in sufficient quantity. If at all.
We'll start talking when each Faction has an absolute minimum 25-30 Missions to choose from.
Alternatively, it'd need to allow another way to approach Missions. Instead of a Push-System (accept whatever is on offer or just go away) we got now, we'll also need a Pull-System.
A way for a CMDR to transmit :
- Combat Ship here, got ELITE Combat Rank, Allied. Looking for Combat Missions with emphasis on {Rep/Credits/Inf}. Fill me up!
- Beluga docked, bringing Friendly Rep. Need to fill all of my empty seats and looking for {Rep/Credits/Inf}. Make it happen.
- Trading T9 docked, Allied and 700tons waiting to be filled. Looking for {Rep/Credits/Inf}. Let's go.
- Anaconda Explorer here, got Pioneer Rank and looking for LongRange Passenger Missions. Emphasis is on {Rep/Credits/Inf}.
But for as long as i.e. a Refinery Economy basically tells anyone docked "Thanks for being here, we have plenty of Salvage Missions for you but nothing else, CMDR!" when greeting Combateers/Traders/Explorers/Miners, nothing is going to happen.
Just doesn't work.
Mission Board System needs to migrate from "Play the game we want(tm)" to "Play the Game you want". Simple as that.
What defines a successful Mission System?
It's a Mission System that allows for any possible Asset with any possible Player preference to entirely fill up that specific asset, be it earn Credits, Influence for or Reputation with the Faction.
Until that happens, Board hopping to get at least something useful out of it will remain the way to go.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, i like the idea of mining systems having mainly mining missions.
Our problems comes from having a tourist system and having selected it before colonia missions became a thing. Now we are invested in it but have to deal with this insanity. If those are taken out the equation, we actually do get a nice mix of missions available, but its just so random as to how many are not for Colonia.
If i could go back and change our system, i'd definitely be wanting a system which has a more varied mission selection. If i was into mining heavily though, i'd be looking at setting up in an extraction system for obvious reasons.