Fee for Open/Solo switching

[Bortas]

So you just read the thread title and feel urged to shout "are you crazy"? But please read on, before unleashing your rage onto me.

I suggest each mode switch should cost 1% worth of your total assets in credits.

Yes, it sounds crazy, but it would solve some of the most game-breaking problems in a single strike, without changing the fundamental spirit of the game:

- Mode switching will still be possible any time. Only hopping between the modes back and forth would be limited. The new player who started in solo can switch to open once he feels prepared. If he doesn't like it, he can switch back... no problem.

- Player approaches a system in open, finds out it is blockaded by a player faction or pirates are around... switch to solo, fly to station, switch back to open to avoid all danger... no longer feasible

- It would even fix combat logging to an extent... Combat log, switch to solo, fly away, switch back to open... no longer feasible. The combat logger can never be sure, wether the angry players he cheated are still around, waiting for him. While it wouldn't prevent combat logging, it would at least make it much less convenient for the cheater.

- Exploiting consecutive mode-switching to reset the bulletin boards will no longer be possible.


Certainly you will now start telling me what drawbacks this would have... so let's address these:

- High Rez Screenshots can only be taken in solo/group... simple solution: make them available in open

- Pad loitering by afk players... solution: Add an idle timer, like other games do

edit:
Alternatively, as a less severe alternative, a simple time barrier could have the same effect.

I.e.:

- If you switch from open to solo, you may not come back to open for 24h. You may switch between solo and group freely, though.
- Accodringly If you switch from solo/group to open, you may not switch back for 24h.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Hi res screenshots were weaponised. They will be again.

 

[grumpsalot]

Sounds a lot like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[AJW]

I've a better suggestion: any time someone posts a suggestion for 'fixing' something which FD have made perfectly clear is acceptable game play, they forfeit 1% of their total assets.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

So you just read the thread title and feel urged to shout "are you crazy"? But please read on, before unleashing your rage onto me.

I suggest each mode switch should cost 1% worth of your total assets in credits.

Yes, it sounds crazy, but it would solve some of the most game-breaking problems in a single strike, without changing the fundamental spirit of the game:

- Mode switching will still be possible any time. Only hopping between the modes back and forth would be limited. The new player who started in solo can switch to open once he feels prepared. If he doesn't like it, he can switch back... no problem.

- Player approaches a system in open, finds out it is blockaded by a player faction or pirates are around... switch to solo, fly to station, switch back to open to avoid all danger... no longer feasible

- It would even fix combat logging to an extent... Combat log, switch to solo, fly away, switch back to open... no longer feasible. The combat logger can never be sure, wether the angry players he cheated are still around, waiting for him. While it wouldn't prevent combat logging, it would at least make it much less convenient for the cheater.

- Exploiting consecutive mode-switching to reset the bulletin boards will no longer be possible.


Certainly you will now start telling me what drawbacks this would have... so let's address these:

- High Rez Screenshots can only be taken in solo/group... simple solution: make them available in open

- Pad loitering by afk players... solution: Add an idle timer, like other games do


Did I miss anything?

So it costs me 1 mill to switch becausei am not in the mood to socialise? No thanks.

FORCED player made blokades do not work by design. David braben has said as much in dev diaries. A player switching modes for what ever reason is a design feature not a flaw...... Even if you do not like it does not make it so.

Not having hires screens in open is not a feature it is a limitation of the game. If FD would they could allow it so this proper screws space tourism

I do hope illegal combat loggers are sort out...... At the same time that consequences for ganking is also sorted out

 

[CMDR Heisenberg B. Damned]

What would stop someone going into a private group or are you suggesting if I wanted to lark around with a few friends without bothering others I (and the others in that group) have to lose 1% of total assets?

 

[Jockey79]

Player made blokades do not work by design.

He knows, he has been in the SOG threads... where this belongs.

 

[Oaktree]

I would agree if the gankers and trolls who prey on the defenseless players, and have no interest in real piracy, only in murder, would have to pay a fee of 1% of their assets.

 

[Cat_Astrophe]

OP, for some folks your proposed 1% loss might make their delivery or mission less than worthless. So how about no. Being inconvenienced to satisfy people who just want to annoy others is repugnant.
>
And how about those who took the mission or delivery in solo and decided to deliver in open. Do you propose adding 1% net worth for them? Surely, no one could figure out how to game that!
>
Probably all you would achieve is encouraging people to play solo permanently. Might there be some POSITIVE measures you can think of to encourage people to play in open instead of pulling out penalties first thing?

 

[Ari Ben Zayn]

I do hope illegal combat loggers are sort out...... At the same time that consequences for ganking is also sorted out

With the gigantic amount of noise currently produced by a very special group of players I don't think they'll face more severe consequences than that poor 6k bounty.

 

[Jockey79]

...
Did I miss anything?

Yes;

As you felt the need to start a new SOG thread you forgot the most important part of an SOG thread;

Wall of Information

From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*

Some Dev comments from the Kickstarter;

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1681441
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705397
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705551

The part about it being as much a MMO as CoD is already in your Wall of Text, the second KS post. His exact words were "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."

About he not wanting to call it a MMO early on, well, besides that very post hinting at it, and the Kickstart page not using that term even once, I remember hearing it in old video interviews from the KS era. The "I don't see it as an MMO in the traditional sense" line came out quite a few times before fans managed to finally convince DB that Elite Dangerous, as pitched, would qualify as an actual MMO.

There are other interesting things to find in those old interviews. For example, just from the Gary Whitta interview with David Braben and Chris Roberts, you have:
(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

As reference for the following quote, here is Chris Roberts speaking about the Star Citizen equivalent of this thread (part 3, 5:30):
"And the key is kind of what David alluded to, which I think it's a debate that David has with his community and it's a debate I have with my community because there is definitely this whole sort of PvP and PvE sort of factions that go on and they're all pretty rabid. And so I think, and I think David also believes that you can sort of create a game that can cater to both sets of players and it will be okay. But it certainly is, that is, I would say if I were going to give you a touchpaper to set up a fight with your community that's the one to do it."

The immediate follow up by DB about PvE groups (part 3, 6:01):
"Well, the discussions have come up already. We have this concept of groups where you can join a group which doesn't allow or does allow it on the user choice."

Or this about the kind of game DB would want to play (part 3, 7:09):
"You know, so what I would I want from a game? I want to be able to play a great game without being griefed by teenagers, but having said that I do want there to be a feeling of risk out there."

Also this about what player interaction in ED was supposed to be about (part 3, 2:06):
"And so, I don’t mean necessarily every ship should be a player because then you get into a frame of mind that you can’t kill anything without really upsetting someone. I mean with Elite: Dangerous it’s still…a lot of the ships you encounter won’t be real players but we will call out, of the ships that you meet, who is a real player. We have a way of distinguishing them within the game. They’re actually part of this group of pilots that you’re part of and it will call out, above them say. Essentially what it means is “this is a real player,” but in the game fabric: “so this is a group who a member of the same organization as you.” We…you know, in other words we, we don’t want this game to be all about player vs. player kills, but the point is it encourages a lot of cooperation. And, it will be possible to do player vs. player kills if that’s what people want to do. "

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)

Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (Twitch Video now removed, YT link for it below)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/

( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c )

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .

The Steam Store page;

Please note, "Single Player" and "Multiplayer" with "Co-op".
So not just an "MMO"


Dev comments;

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

Thanks for that clarity Michael.

Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.

Michael

We are supporting multiplayer and the solo experience. Community Goals are carrying on too.

E3 2015 Interview (17th June 2015);

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/0...-david-braben/

View attachment 98946

PowerPlay AMA related links regarding Modes and Powerplay;

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=106524&page=27&p=1663438#post1663438
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=140032&page=22&p=2145448&viewfull=1#post2145448
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=140032&page=25&p=2145528&viewfull=1#post2145528

The overall thread topic (+ How XB1 fits);

On that last point, Producer Ben Dowie reiterated that Xbox One and PC players won’t be playing head-to-head—although they’ll be playing in the same simulated universe, they’ll never encounter each other in space, likely because Microsoft’s Xbox patch cycle adds complexity to Frontier’s game update procedure. This means that PC players and Xbox players will often wind up on different clients, which means no head-to-head play. To that end, anticipated PC-centric features will likely land on PC first.

And regarding the game design;

I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”

To highlight something from that above quote;

“You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play."

Here is a quote from Zac Antonaci for the "game is dying" pro-claimers.
Dated 10th July 2015;

They need to be.


Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.

Hey Fred,


I wanted to reply to this honestly if I may.


I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.


<snip>


Zac

And a nice, clear, concise comment from Michael Brookes regarding the modes;

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

Dev Update 6th August 2015 (https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/248);

What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.

(I added the bold / underline in the quote to highlight the last line)


Reddit AMA from X-Box One launch, in relation to the Back Ground Simulation and Modes;
https://np.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/3nlmdg/its_frontier_developments_developers_of_elite/

^^ So PC/Mac and X-Box One impact the same live simulation, but cannot actually play together or see each other.

^^ X-Box One also has "Solo Mode" and is recommended by FD Devs for when you do not want to play with other people.

Horizons Live Stream;
(RE: Question about ED being an MMO)

DB was asked a question "Is Elite and MMORPG?" in the LiveStream tonight.

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;RdP1DmRYco8]https://youtu.be/RdP1DmRYco8[/video]

He answered it like this:

19:42
"Well I think the problem is this: Different people mean different things by saying MMOs, you know. I think we're massive (19:53) by most measures, in terms of we have a lot of people playing, all at the same time. We have instancing, but then you know so does every other or every MMO out there. (20:10) The case, you know, you look at the way Warcraft does it. Now the case is (20:15) where do you set the number. So currently it's you know around 32 players in a session plus NPCs and all that sort of thing. (20:23) You know we could go higher if it weren't for the NPCs, we could go higher if people had perfect network connections. You know if we had a LAN we could go way higher. You know this is the point. (20:31) And it's a case of balancing the experience and also how much data you have to exchange. You know it's a quality of the experience that I expect over time we will increase it.

"But are we an MMO? I think we are by all measures."

Ed speaks and then David adds:

"It's not an RPG in a sense that (21:09) you increase your personal stats but a lot of people play it as a role playing game. I think if that's what you want it to be then so it is I suppose. I don't think it really matters. Someone said 'That's a silly question. Such a waste of time.' Well there you go."

Solo / Group / Open Mega Threads post counts.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=90583 (1st)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=145309 (2nd)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=169599 (3rd)​

 

[Jackboot]

I think its a great idea, but whats to stop you from exiting the game completely and starting it again and choosing solo or open then? I'm not sure the game remembers which one you were in before, furthermore I'm not sure if it can even if they wanted it to. Barring the technical reasons though I'd be all for it.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

While I like your idea, it needs a 'buffer'
You should be able to mode switch every 30(or so) minutes if you want.
-One of your buddys may join open/group and ask you to join while you're in solo/Open/different group.
-You may genuinely crash/quit and forget which mode you was last in (I know I do, I spent 4 hours in solo once wondering why I never saw another player).
-during busy times (CGs mostly), it may not actually be possible to land anywhere, due to the landing pad bug. Mode switching is one of the few ways to fix it.

-If it was randomly implemented, it should warn you if you're going to be charged for abusive mode switching.
"You have switched modes in the last 30 minutes, selection this mode wil cost you XXX,XXX,XXXcr! Continue or return to X mode?"


Also.
How were high RES screen shots weaponised? Lol sounds weird.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

You do realize that as pipe dreams go, this is full blown hippie pipe? Never going to happen.

 

[Shizuka]

Solo, and Open are obviously different games put together, just make a cmdr for each mode, so ppl can play the mode they like when they like, both cmdrs will have an impact in the background simulation, but there will be no more "evading" the thing that makes this game "dangerous".

 

[Jockey79]

....
-If it was randomly implemented, it should warn you if you're going to be charged for abusive mode switching....

What on earth is "abusive" mode switching?

And don't forget, changing groups "at will" was is part of the main design and an advertised feature from Kickstarter (see my post above).

 

[49rTbird]

I've a better suggestion: any time someone posts a suggestion for 'fixing' something which FD have made perfectly clear is acceptable game play, they forfeit 1% of their total assets.

+rep!

 

[Asp Explorer]

Take a 5760x1080 screen, multiply it by 4 (or whatever the hires render was) and write the resulting file to USB 1.1 drive at 100K a second.

 

[CMDR Arni Sigurdsson]

Yeah we MUST protect the rights those poor thieving killing pirates...we MUST !!!

Double facepalm.

 

[Jackboot]

What on earth is "abusive" mode switching?

And don't forget, changing groups "at will" was is part of the main design and an advertised feature from Kickstarter (see my post above).

Not trying to speak for CMDR_Cosmicspacehead but when I think of abusive mode switching I think of using it as an exploit to refresh the BB faster then the devs have designed it to refresh by switching modes over and over to get a new server so you get a new BB. Not having to wait for missions to refresh greatly increases the profitability per hour of very lucrative activities like shadow deliveries, and makes it much easier to breeze through major faction ranking by abusing the donate missions. I feel like if the devs wanted us to be able to instantly refresh the mission boards there would be a way to do it in game, and the timer is there to balance things like high reward missions.
Along with combat logging, it seems like its just another way players can use cheats.