Fee for Open/Solo switching

[Winterwalker]

The main issue, in my opinion, with the OP is that it seeks to restrict player choice through fines (or possibly delays mentioned later). It's just a stick - no carrot involved for the player making the choice - and is more aimed at making other players play the way that some players want them to rather than playing the game how they want to themself.

If a restricted-Open mode were to be introduced, I would have no issue at all with players choosing to play in it and never leave - that's their choice after all.

Agreed, the OP is all stick. There is a carrot though; for the player that's personal kudos .. not everyone's cup of tea I know, but if you're to be proudly open to PVP as a player then what better than knowing that all the people you come up against are also, in it to win it so to speak (they might be allies too, you don't know until you meet them. I love that aspect of the unknown myself).

Mara's question of architecture aside (only because I don't know) I think there's a carrot for FD as well, in that it's more hard core. Hard core solo is 100% fine .. Hard core open (if that's your choice) is also desirable, if it's authentic .. and I think authentic is good for ED's image.

 

[Magic Man]

ummm, no.

The repeated logging to refresh mission options could be easily fixed by saving a global timestamp to the players account each time they have a bulletin board refresh so, no matter how many times they log out and back in again, it's not going to refresh until the time period is up, the same as if they had stayed logged in. Additionally, check what missions they currently have running so that they are not offered duplicates etc.

They just need to spend a small amount of time to fix this.

 

[Velixar]

You mean if someone has more than 99% of his total assets in ships/modules/cargo... that would mean flying without insurance... but in that case, they'd have to sell something, of course.

So let me get this straight. You want people to sell parts of their ship for your idea. I don't think so. That would ruin some players game play.

 

[Bortas]

If a restricted-Open mode were to be introduced, I would have no issue at all with players choosing to play in it and never leave - that's their choice after all.

The idea is neat, the only concern I'm having with it is it would thin out the already very thin density of players in open even more... an effect my suggestion would avoid. Apart from that I doubt many players would chose this mode... even though I am an open ony player I would hesitate to permanently lock myself into a mode where I might never meet another player again.

But I see where you are coming from... instead of disincentivizing mode switching you want to incentivize sticking to open. But how could this be done? I have heard ideas like doubling trade profits when trading in open, but they were crushed.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

So let me get this straight. You want people to sell parts of their ship for your idea

No, it would only be necessary in the very rare case of someone having less than 1% of their assets in cash (Do you know many players flying without insurance? I don't). And I see nothing wrong with this... if you want to buy something (in this case a mode-switch), you obbiously have to get some cash.

That would ruin some players game play.

The exploits I mentioned in my OP are (probably) ruining many more players' gameplay. But they are not you, so you don't care about them, right?

 

[Robert Maynard]

The idea is neat, the only concern I'm having with it is it would thin out the already very thin density of players in open even more... an effect my suggestion would avoid. Apart from that I doubt many players would chose this mode... even though I am an open ony player I would hesitate to permanently lock myself into a mode where I might never meet another player again.

But I see where you are coming from... instead of disincentivizing mode switching you want to incentivize sticking to open. But how could this be done? I have heard ideas like doubling trade profits when trading in open, but they were crushed.

The proposal did not mandate a permanent lock.

The incentive to play in restricted-Open would be that no targets would be able to change modes to avoid interaction (they could, of course, choose to leave the game at any time however). Any players in restricted-Open would know that every other player that they encountered actually wanted to play in a mode that they could not easily switch out of. Additional financial reward for a play-style choice does not fit with Frontier's stance that "all game modes are equal and valid".

 

[Jockey79]

The exploits I mentioned in my OP .....

I keep reading your OP and cannot find the "exploits" you speak of.

Mode switching is an intended feature and design promise from Kickstarter, the BB (and barnacles) refreshing FD have not commented on - so no one knows either way.
Pad loitering is annoying, but not an exploit. Player run blockades are not a thing and FD did comment on that, saying they will run any real blockades.
Hi Rez screenshots were blocked in Open due to people lagging out instances with them, so that wont ever return as it was used for cheating.

Nope, no current exploits listed and the fix for one (screenshots) wont be undone - they need to remain locked to Solo/Group so people don't use it as an invulnerability cheat again.

 

[Bortas]

I keep reading your OP and cannot find the "exploits" you speak of.

Let's say it feels like an exploit, regardless of wether it is officially considered as such or not.

Mode switching is an intended feature and design promise from Kickstarter

They never said it would be free and could be done 100 times per day, though, did they? As I already mentioned, they might not have expected the player to abuse that feature so much, and when a feature turns out to open a barndoor to abuse, it can be revised. My suggestion would allow such a revision without sacrificing the feature itself. No kickstarter promises would be broken.

Hi Rez screenshots were blocked in Open due to people lagging out instances with them, so that wont ever return as it was used for cheating.

Not a difficult thing to fix, though... just disable the feature when in combat. The game can obviously recognize combat situations as it uses this to trigger the 15s logout timer, so that's no hindrance.

 

[Noogillim]

Maybe timed lock down on mode switching would be one way not fines?

Maybe all missions/bounties/cargo could be lost on hard CLing don't forget some folks freely admit to doing it to NPC's - genuine naff connections could be refunded status by FD on investigation?

Why should people who do this deliberately advance their status and rank by working around the game they should be penalised!

As for soft exit via esc key to main menu etc just a 60 second timer - oh dear I could get attacked by an NPC - well do it in a station or in quiet normal space then.


People justifying doing it because FD allows it just labels them into using these workarounds.

Increase your game skill set by learning not to use the cop outs.

 

[vindicator jones]

Chuckles .. this means you have a vested interest (are the ED equivalent of a merchant banker voting against a change in the banking rules?! joking but I'm sure you take my point)

So log out for a few minutes, your mode will still be there when you get back?

Yes I know, I'm crazy, no need to remind me about it but trust me, with assets in the multi billion dollar range I'm perfectly aware of this, and it's exactly the reason why I chose this approach over a fixed sum which becomes meaningless at a point. If I chose, say, 1 million Cr, new players would be unable to switch because they can't afford it, and billionairs wouldn't care, so that would be a bad approch.

My reasoning is: The more experienced you are, the less mode switching should be necessary, because the longer you played, the more you know what you are doing and you know why you chose the mode you are playing in. Personally I'm playing open only and see absolutely no reason why I would switch, except to get docking clearance on an outpost with its only medium pad being blocked by an afk player... but this issue is addressed in the OP.

Also my original suggestion is not inalterable. I could imagine a solution with one free mode change per 24h for example.

My respect for viewing it that objcectively even after our little dispute on another matter

No, I just dont see why I should have to pay 15million credits just for switching my game mode. As someone who switches between a lot of game modes, from private groups where I help new pilots, to solo to do my video work and open to have a bit of fun.

You want to penalize honest players just for making a gaming choice? Its ridiculous.

ummm, no.

The repeated logging to refresh mission options could be easily fixed by saving a global timestamp to the players account each time they have a bulletin board refresh so, no matter how many times they log out and back in again, it's not going to refresh until the time period is up, the same as if they had stayed logged in. Additionally, check what missions they currently have running so that they are not offered duplicates etc.

They just need to spend a small amount of time to fix this.

Exactly what magic man said.. you want to kerb bulletin board mission spamming, then do exactly that.

If your wanting people to play in open, then not only does there need to be an incentive to stay in open (such as bonuses to credits or naval ranking xp) But also to fix the biggest problem we face in open.. Socially Challenged Morons who think the galaxy is their big PVP arena and can just go around blowing anyone up for no reason other than just cause they can. And the only way that is going to be fixed is if there are serious in game consequences that happen to these people. Dont punish the innocent players, punish those who have made Open a barren landscape where people switch modes out of fear of being blown up for absolutely no good reason.

Your suggestion will mean everyone will just stay in solo and no one will go into open, and kill off open for good.

I want to give people reasons to come back into open, not give them more reasons to stay in solo

 

[Robert Maynard]

They never said it would be free and could be done 100 times per day, though, did they?

Actually, they said (snipped for brevity; my bold/italic emphasis):

FAQ- Elite: Dangerous
​

How does multiplayer work?

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, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.​

 

[Winterwalker]

Your suggestion will mean everyone will just stay in solo and no one will go into open, and kill off open for good.

I want to give people reasons to come back into open, not give them more reasons to stay there.

I don't quite agree that would be the effect. I see it much more as a proposal that tries to get people into an authentic open mode, and to stay there. Some people may not like open but they're probably in solo/mobius already. Having them "occasionally" dip into open though doesn't really add much to people playing in open permanently, in fact it undermines trust in the game mode.

ps. I was also teasing you a bit before. Just jealous of all that cash!

Additional financial reward for a play-style choice does not fit with Frontier's stance that "all game modes are equal and valid".

"all game modes are equal and valid" doesn't *fully* equate to "instant switching" between effectively different accounts and, if the general popularity of the game were to suffer through a playerbase, or media perception, of too much switching going on, FD wouldn't need to change this stance even by disincentivising instance logging.

It's thorny because you don't want to remove choice totally but equally, if I want to fly a Corvette I need to make game choices towards that. If I have one, how did I get it? If I'm in open now, did I earn it in open (unarguably more difficult) or not and, going even further, "all this" may even be one of the drivers that forces people towards the big ships before they make that big scary step into open, by which time they're likely in a shoot first questions later state of mind (because they can, in a Corvette).

We don't see Cody on forums these days but he'd (imo, rightly) suggest value in having to play as a mouse before you can become a proper cat.

 

[Bortas]

Actually, they said (snipped for brevity; my bold/italic emphasis):

Yes, thanks... so it would be perfectly fine, as they could still change groups at will.

But apart from that I'm getting more and more convinced that a simple time barrier would be sufficient. I.e. one mode chage every 24 hours is allowed, with Solo<->Group changes not counting. So if you want to log out of open, you can do that. You could even switch to group right away, but you can't come back to open before the next day. And the other way around, if you just joined open, you can't leave it before the next day. We all are able to plan a day ahead, aren't we?

 

[Robert Maynard]

"all game modes are equal and valid" doesn't *fully* equate to "instant switching" between effectively different accounts and, if the general popularity of the game were to suffer through a playerbase, or media perception, of too much switching going on, FD wouldn't need to change this stance even by disincentivising instance logging.

It's thorny of course because you don't want to remove choice totally but equally, if I want to fly a Corvette I need to make game choices towards that. If I have one, how did I get it? If I'm in open now, did I earn it in open (unarguably more difficult) or not and, going even further, "all this" may even be one of the drivers that forces people towards the big ships before they make that big scary step into open, by which time they're likely in a shoot first questions later state of mind (because they can, in a Corvette).

Every player can choose to play in whichever mode they want to - the emphasis being on "want to", i.e. by choice.

For some players the possibility that a player can mode switch *at*all* is "too much switching going on".

Where a player gains the credits / rank for a Corvette (or Cutter for that matter) is moot - as long as they played the game to earn them.

A tiny fraction of Open is "unarguably more difficult" for a player not in a Wing (due to other players being instanced with the player) - if the other players instanced with the player are hostile. For almost all of Open, being in a Wing makes the game easier (due to safety in numbers) - then there's Wing trade dividends - up to 15% free extra profit from the game for playing in a Wing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes, thanks... so it would be perfectly fine, as they could still change groups at will.

But apart from that I'm getting more and more convinced that a simple time barrier would be sufficient. I.e. one mode chage every 24 hours is allowed, with Solo<->Group changes not counting. So if you want to log out of open, you can do that. You could even switch to group right away, but you can't come back to open before the next day. And the other way around, if you just joined open, you can't leave it before the next day. We all are able to plan a day ahead, aren't we?

In the quote, Open is the "All" group.

What you propose is to restrict every player's freedom to suit the preferred play-style of a subset of the player-base - even if one mode switch per day was "permitted". One group of players seeking to restrict the freedom of other players does not seem to be consistent with either the game design or Frontier's statements on the topic.

 

[mistohise]

Yes, thanks... so it would be perfectly fine, as they could still change groups at will.

But apart from that I'm getting more and more convinced that a simple time barrier would be sufficient. I.e. one mode chage every 24 hours is allowed, with Solo<->Group changes not counting. So if you want to log out of open, you can do that. You could even switch to group right away, but you can't come back to open before the next day. And the other way around, if you just joined open, you can't leave it before the next day. We all are able to plan a day ahead, aren't we?

Generally speaking, yes. But you've not explained why I should have to.

Clearly the idea of not being able to swtich modes doesn't bother you, so you are happy with the idea that others shouldn't be able to switch modes as often as they might like. But why? What are you wanting to see as a result?

 

[Jockey79]

Yes, thanks... so it would be perfectly fine, as they could still change groups at will..

But you could not "change at will" if you had to pay and was currently short of cash.

The simple fact is, no matter your opinion on mode switching - it was part of the game BEFORE anyone could even buy it (as it was in the sale pitch on Kickstarter).
Some people backed the game for that very reason.

If you don't like the idea of people being able to leave your game mode when they like - you really should not have bought a game that advertised mode switching as a core feature.

As for the screenshots, what about players not in combat in the same instance as people who are - then hitting Hi Rez screenshots. Still going to disrupt others playing.
So no, Hi Rez can stay out of open - imo it should not be in group mode either, as it is still open to abuse.

 

[Mephane]

Yes I know, I'm crazy, no need to remind me about it

BTW&FYI: calling your idea crazy is not calling you crazy. Sane people can have crazy ideas, crazy people can have sane ideas.

 

[Bortas]

What you propose is to restrict every player's freedom to suit the preferred play-style of a subset of the player-base - even if one mode switch per day was "permitted". One group of players seeking to restrict the freedom of other players does not seem to be consistent with either the game design or Frontier's statements on the topic.

Isn't that alway the case, though? Just recently Sandro said, PvP is considered an integreal part of ED. Isn't the ability to switch modes any time to avoid let's say a pirate, also restricting the pirate's freedom to play the game his way?

Try to take the pirate's point of view for a moment:
1) You are waiting in a system where you expect traders
2) Trader enters the system and notices another player
3) He immediately logs out.
4) He switches to solo, moves on to the station and sells his cargo.
5) He switches back to open and jumps on, but not without short visit to supercruise to let you know what happened (overexaggerating a bit, but it happens)
6) 10 minutes later, you are still there, the trader enters the system again on his next traderun
7) goto 3)

Now tell me, isn't this a problem? The pirate doesn't have the right to play the game his way, because players can abuse mode-switching?

 

[Winterwalker]

Every player can choose to play in whichever mode they want to - the emphasis being on "want to", i.e. by choice..

OP and subsequent suggestions do allow that choice. But a choice with some level of consequence.

For some players the possibility that a player can mode switch *at*all* is "too much switching going on".

If that's damaging to the game's potential, not a good thing. Even though all modes were created equal, "switching" modes I can't see was an entirely planned result, a balancing issue, perhaps better seen as.

Where a player gains the credits / rank for a Corvette (or Cutter for that matter) is moot - as long as they played the game to earn them.

It does undermine trust between players and the game though, otherwise the mode debate (seen in other threads) wouldn't happen?

A tiny fraction of Open is "unarguably more difficult" for a player not in a Wing (due to other players being instanced with the player) - if the other players instanced with the player are hostile. For almost all of Open, being in a Wing makes the game easier (due to safety in numbers) - then there's Wing trade dividends - up to 15% free extra profit from the game for playing in a Wing.

Always thought Wings a cool choice for earliest update (could use some extra local BB match-making facilities for me, off topic). By unarguably though, I do mean, you could just as likely meet a player wing .. of Corvettes!! (run away quickly Sir Robin, woop!) .. a jungle with no lions is of course, less jungle, and it IS where a great many people do come from

Modes yes. Modes as an excuse for instance switching? No. (imo)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Isn't that alway the case, though? Just recently Sandro said, PvP is considered an integreal part of ED. Isn't the ability to switch modes any time to avoid let's say a pirate, also restricting the pirate's freedom to play the game his way?

Try to take the pirate's point of view for a moment:
1) You are waiting in a system where you expect traders
2) Trader enters the system and notices another player
3) He immediately logs out.
4) He switches to solo, moves on to the station and sells his cargo.
5) He switches back to open and jumps on, but not without short visit to supercruise to let you know what happened (overexaggerating a bit, but it happens)
6) 10 minutes later, you are still there, the trader enters the system again on his next tradrun
7) goto 3)

Now tell me, isn't this a problem? The pirate doesn't have the right to play the game his way, because players can abuse mode-switching?

Sandro commented on differing play-styles here:

• We have players that want a range of different experiences
• All of those experiences are valid
• Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive

So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.

Simply put, players whose chosen play-style relies on other players as content are up against the equally valid play-style choice of the other players. When those play-styles come into conflict, neither is forced to do anything.