Do "purple-haired heroes" scare everyone into Solo?

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Why do people move from open to solo under certain circumstances and could that be a problem?

No.

 

[Old Duck]

Not entirely. I find that 'being in punching distance' tends to somewhat mitigate the worst tendencies in humans.

I play board games with friends and civilized people with the unsaid agreement that we're getting together to have fun, all of us. If I were to equate a board game to ED in Open, it's like middle-school me taking my chess set to the playground and inviting everyone and anyone to play, including the schoolyard bullies. Heck, if I just play chess with a friend on the playground, odds are a bully would come along and flip the board on us... So yeah, there's validity in having a safe* place (modes) to play our games without people flipping our boards over.

* safe from bullies and harassment, that is. The challenge of chess is defined by the game itself, not the bullies flipping over the board. So I would argue that the "dangerous, dystopian" world of ED is set by the game itself (NPCs, station rules, etc) and not the purple-haired heroes.

 

[Sylow]

I'd think anyone who has played enough board games or table-top RPGs, with enough people, would generally be immune to being caught off guard by "dingleberries" in video games.

Really? Now you have my pitty. Your quality filter for company seems to be broken there.

Among my friends we have a board game day once a month. I play pen and paper RPGs since over 30 years now. (I just calculated that and it scares me! Damn! ) Yet my encounters with the mentioned "dingleberries" were very few in that time.

All in all, the whole act of meeting and playing for an afternoon is some effort. You have to plan and organize. It comes with a kind of social contract: you meet, you have fun. If what you say is true, then the people you play with don't really understand the mere basics of such a social contract. (In the run of over 30 years of pen and paper roleplaying, we had exactly two people who were filtered out by breaking social contract. They both got one warning to behave better, they failed, they didn't get further invitations. )

I am sorry that your experience seems to have been so bad.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

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.

You cant get attacked in open from solo. Your stuff is perfectly safe.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

All the wonderfully creative forms of station griefing, for example.

Ah yes, that does stray into exploity territory. But fortunately it can be bypassed by going iinto a mode where this isn't possible.

And that is the area I feel where modes do shine. Players have been complaining about not being able to put up blockades, like you can perhaps do in other games. The result being that a group of players can claim systems for their own. And players like me should not be able to enter those systems uncontested.

My take is that it's not up to other players which system I am or aren't allowed to visit. That's Frontier's decision. If random other players would be able to dictate my game in that way, I would not have bought Elite Dangerous.

To be clear, I think that FD generally completely misunderstood online gaming when designing ED. DB and Sandro might be game enthusiasts, but if so I'd wager it is mostly board-games instead of online computer games. Their concept of adversarial actions seems based on how people behave in a social, real-life, setting. A setting where 'creating fun together' is more important than 'winning', never mind going out of your way to explicitly try to make other people unhappy. It would explain why they are constantly caught off-guard when people invent new and creative ways of being a dingleberry.

O yeah, that much is clear. While I think most players do subscribe to the sort of gameplay they were envisioning, it only takes a couple of dingleberries to torpedo that.

In that light I suspect that the modes are designed to fit, on a higher level, one's desired game style. Instead, many use it to 'game the system'. Playing Solo because you dont enjoy, in general terms, interacting with others in your session. Playing Solo strictly because it allows for a more efficient powerplay meta is quite another. So at its most basic I suspect any mode-changing motivated by a perceived increase in chance to 'win' (whether it is to make PP easier, to refresh the mission board in the old days et cetera) instead of an intrinsic preference is unintended. Not everything that is unintended is wrong, of course, and once FD becomes aware of unintended behavior they still have to determine whether they want to allow it or not. But still, the idea that not all behavior is intended and desired is not invalid, I feel.

The issue here is clear. It's players. Players will always try to find ways to game the system, whichever system you decide upon.

I don't think that's an issue that is easily dealt with.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Only if they think you're serious and that they won't come out on top...even then some people can't help themselves.

The more common solution is: lets not invite Jack Dingleberry to our games anymore.

 

[Morbad]

Really? Now you have my pitty. Your quality filter for company seems to be broken there.

Among my friends we have a board game day once a month. I play pen and paper RPGs since over 30 years now. (I just calculated that and it scares me! Damn! ) Yet my encounters with the mentioned "dingleberries" were very few in that time.

I generally played with who was available.

All in all, the whole act of meeting and playing for an afternoon is some effort. You have to plan and organize. It comes with a kind of social contract: you meet, you have fun. If what you say is true, then the people you play with don't really understand the mere basics of such a social contract. (In the run of over 30 years of pen and paper roleplaying, we had exactly two people who were filtered out by breaking social contract. They both got one warning to behave better, they failed, they didn't get further invitations. )

It is a lot of effort, which is one of the reasons why I haven't always been terribly picky about the flaws of those in my gaming groups. Even when I limit myself to playing with those I know well, not all of these people get along with each other.

As for vague social contracts...people's ideas of fun can be very different. Even if everyone comes with the best intentions, it could still end poorly. So, I tend to have more explicit rules at my table.

I am sorry that your experience seems to have been so bad.

Who said I considered it bad?

The occasional bit of toxicity may be more visceral face-to-face, but so are it's solutions, and I've had many positive experiences I likely wouldn't have had if I limited myself to interacting with only mild-mannered types who were all socially aware enough to know when they we're giving offense, or concerned enough to avoid it.

Players will always try to find ways to game the system, whichever system you decide upon.

I don't think that's an issue that is easily dealt with.

Game needs a more coherent and explicit vision, publicly posted, so people can know how things are support to work. Then it needs actual moderation.

The more common solution is: lets not invite Jack Dingleberry to our games anymore.

Some of these people were never invited, they just show up.

I can either drag them out before the game, or after. It's usually more fun if I let them play. We do check for weapons first though and everyone knows Eddie is only allowed to write with a crayon.

 

[Mohrgan]

I was quite keen on the idea of on-line games when they 1st started appearing. I thought, now I can game, without having to have a pack of nerds in my house. It's panned out pretty well.

 

[Robert Maynard]

As for vague social contracts...people's ideas of fun can be very different.

Indeed.

Game needs a more coherent and explicit vision, publicly posted, so people can know how things are support to work. Then it needs actual moderation.

Sandro publicly posted that leaving the game using menu exit, at any time, is acceptable (and he acknowledged that not all players would agree).

He also posted on the block list - the effects of which would seem to have been strengthened over time.

With those two and the existence of the three game modes and the single shared galaxy state - what else needs to be said?

 

[Old Duck]

With those two and the existence of the three game modes and the single shared galaxy state - what else needs to be said?

I could say something about an official Open PvE mode being added to the game, but the last time I did this the forum had a meltdown.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

"That and I signed up for Mobius, for things like CGs when I want to do some hauling without an immersion-breaking ganker gauntlet."

Yes, because we all know how immersive having everyone grinning and offering to hug you is in the dystopian future that is the ED universe

It isn't like that at all.... Non pilots federation members still attack us in mobius... It is just that actual pilots federation members

I'd think anyone who has played enough board games or table-top RPGs, with enough people, would generally be immune to being caught off guard by "dingleberries" in video games.

indeed...... I guess this is why I usually only play with real life friends, or failing that a community of people who i trust enough that our goals for in game gameplay are compatible.

I do PvP in some games on occasion, but only in games where i am not bothered about versimilitude. arena shooters like cod or gears of war or BF4 or CQC arena and the like..... but these games, the main thing is for me, invariably there is no setback for destruction, there is no narrative - either spoon fed or implied - to follow and the entire reason for those multiplayer modes existance is just to pew pew.

 

[lysan]

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?

Because it can be abused, it’s that simple.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because it can be abused, it’s that simple.

Whether mode switching is a problem or a feature is a matter of opinion - that mode switching on a session by session basis exists is a fact, as it has been since before the game was launched.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I could say something about an official Open PvE mode being added to the game, but the last time I did this the forum had a meltdown.

Indeed - we could go right back to the Kickstarter FAQ's mention of multiple Open "groups" (modes) where the rules could be different to suit different play-styles....

 

[Morbad]

Sandro publicly posted that leaving the game using menu exit, at any time, is acceptable (and he acknowledged that not all players would agree).

I have examples that I am confident Sandro would consider abuse of the feature.

With those two and the existence of the three game modes and the single shared galaxy state - what else needs to be said?

Your example are just a reiteration/clarification of specific rules, not a description of the game that is supposed to result from them.

The rules are not really in question, what Frontier is trying to do with them is. The latter is far more important than legalisms, but since we lack this, we have only the rules, which, as implemented and enforced, result in a totally incoherent, implausible, setting. If everyone knew what was supposed to be, interpreting the rules that are, and filling in the gaps of rules that aren't, would be a simple matter.

 

[Brrokk]

I could say something about an official Open PvE mode being added to the game, but the last time I did this the forum had a meltdown.

It's the elephant in the room. The game environment which proves most popular in other MMOs and ED doesn't yet offer.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I have examples that I am confident Sandro would consider abuse of the feature.

I don't doubt that you have - and it may well be that they form part of the collateral damage that particular design decisions have resulted in (that haven't changed the design decision).

Your example are just a reiteration/clarification of specific rules, not a description of the game that is supposed to result from them.

The rules are not really in question, what Frontier is trying to do with them is. The latter is far more important than legalisms, but since we lack this, we have only the rules, which, as implemented and enforced, result in a totally incoherent, implausible, setting. If everyone knew what was supposed to be, interpreting the rules that are, and filling in the gaps of rules that aren't, would be a simple matter.

I would expect that those reiterations and clarifications were made in the hope that players would understand what is supposed to be. There are those that still consider affecting the BGS from Solo and Private Groups to be "cheating" or "exploiting" - even after Frontier's reiteration.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I could say something about an official Open PvE mode being added to the game, but the last time I did this the forum had a meltdown.

Why tho? It's a pretty reasonable question. However the game is designed as it is. Whether that was a good idea is written in another book.

 

[Mohrgan]

I have examples that I am confident Sandro would consider abuse of the feature.



Your example are just a reiteration/clarification of specific rules, not a description of the game that is supposed to result from them.

The rules are not really in question, what Frontier is trying to do with them is. The latter is far more important than legalisms, but since we lack this, we have only the rules, which, as implemented and enforced, result in a totally incoherent, implausible, setting. If everyone knew what was supposed to be, interpreting the rules that are, and filling in the gaps of rules that aren't, would be a simple matter.

If you take the existing rules, expansion of those rules (Block), and FD's defense of these rules one could, and should, reasonably infer their intent. The way I see it is, they have a dedication to a single state galaxy, with three broad points of access, the modes. Every feature is solidly built around PvE mechanics. Even with all of that material with which to deduce, FD have plainly said what they are trying to make.

FD are making a game that is inclusive and adaptive to the entire spectrum of player types. This makes some players crazy. But, that's what's going on here. FD are making a game that each player can tailor their exposure, to the game and other players. Again, this makes some players crazy. The problem is not with FD and knowing their intentions. The problem is with players who can't accept what we have. Nothing more.

 

[Morbad]

I would expect that those reiterations and clarifications were made in the hope that players would understand what is supposed to be.

They are still too specific, too piecemeal, and not where most will see it. That they also often aren't reflected in how the game actually appears to work is another problem.

There are those that still consider affecting the BGS from Solo and Private Groups to be "cheating" or "exploiting" - even after Frontier's reiteration.

This is true, but again, Frontier has generally said that this is intentional and that all the modes are supposed to be equal, without really explaining why...unless I've missed those posts (such a 'mission statement' sort of thing should be the first page in the game's manual).