Fee for Open/Solo switching

[Robert Maynard]

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

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.

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

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)

Restricted choice or penalties for making a choice are a form of coercion - we have all been encouraged by Frontier to "play the game how you want to".

Whether a feature is "damaging to a game's potential" very much depends on the target audience for the game. Players who only want PvP will obviously see mode switching as damaging to the game's potential from their perspective. Players who do not seek PvP will probably not. Given that the feature has been part of the game design from the outset suggests that Frontier, that might infer which type of player the game was pitched at.

No-one knows where any player earned anything in the game. The mode debate is, broadly speaking, a PvP / PvE debate revolving around core game features, i.e. the three game modes, single shared galaxy state and mode mobility.

Not every player bought the game to be content for player "lions".

I agree wholeheartedly that mode flipping to get missions is an abuse of the system. As you mentioned, the better to solve this would be to make the mission list for a particular player the same whichever mode they were in.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

.... an extrapolation of which would be the addition of another game mode - Open-Only - where players could choose to lock their commanders into (for a period of time, indefinitely, up for debate). That way, any player would be in the mode voluntarily having made the conscious decision to give-up their mode switching ability for a period of time.

open only mode would get my vote... along with PvE only.

 

[Bortas]

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.

I can totally accept that, if the other player chose to play in solo mode to begin with... but in the case I described, he chose to play open... he's just doing a short switch to solo and then back to open, with the sole purpose of avoiding a player who also chose to play open. Both players chose open, the trader and the pirate... shouldn't this give the pirate the right to try to do what he is playing the game for? Is that really a valid playstyle in your eyes? How would you call such a playstyle?

Being able to chose a mode is fine, no problem with that. But when you chose a mode, this choice should have a meaning. I'm trying to make that choice at least a little bit more sticky to give it some meaning

 

[Robert Maynard]

I can totally accept that, if the other player chose to play in solo mode to begin with... but in the case I described, he chose to play open... he's just doing a short switch to solo and then back to open, with the sole purpose of avoiding a player who also chose to play open. Both players chose open, the trader and the pirate... shouldn't this give the pirate the right to try to do what he is playing the game for? Is that really a valid playstyle in your eyes? How would you call such a playstyle?

Being able to chose a mode is fine, no problem with that. But when you chose a mode, this choice should have a meaning. I'm trying to make that choice at least a little bit more sticky to give it some meaning

I would call that play-style "someone who is seeking an Open-PvE mode for co-operative interaction with likeminded players" - sadly there is no such game mode.

Choosing a mode is a per-session decision - that's the way that Frontier have implemented it, in accordance with their published game design.

 

[CMDR Heisenberg B. Damned]

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?

So you want to go to, let's say a trade CG, turn up and attack trade ships which will have little or no shields and probably no weapons as they have to outfit for cargo space and jump range.

This you call PvP, can't help thinking it sounds a lot like someone wanting punch someone a lot weaker than they are and then thinking that means they're tough.

Anyone got a really really small violin?

 

[esxste]

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?

One can pirate NPC ships.

You proposed "solution" does nothing to solve this. Put yourself in the head of the trader, and you'll realise that what they want is to make as much profit as possible. Avoid pirates, griefers and the like is the best way to make profit. Forcing them to choose solo/PG or open, will always result in them choosing solo/PG. Result: Trader loses some of the social aspect of the game, the pirates have no traders at all.

As has been said before, your solution is based on the assumption everyone should play the game YOUR way. Why not try think of a solution that satisfies your wants as well as everyone elses?


For me, the Pilots Federation could punish more severely its members who kill other members. It's crazy that parking violations get you an instant death sentence, but murder is a small bounty.

 

[Bortas]

One can pirate NPC ships.

lol, yeah... please do that and let me know how well it went. It is of no relevance to the topic, though.

You proposed "solution" does nothing to solve this. Put yourself in the head of the trader, and you'll realise that what they want is to make as much profit as possible. Avoid pirates, griefers and the like is the best way to make profit. Forcing them to choose solo/PG or open, will always result in them choosing solo/PG. Result: Trader loses some of the social aspect of the game, the pirates have no traders at all.

You underestimate the traders. Many traders are willfully chosing to play open, because of the additional danger which is adding to their gaming experience.
My solution would help insofar as it would save us pirates the time we would otherwise waste with combat loggers and mode switchers. I would be happy if those players stayed in solo. They are only stealing my time anyway.

As has been said before, your solution is based on the assumption everyone should play the game YOUR way.

No, not at all. It leaves everyone free to chose solo or group and play the game their way. But... if someone choses to play the game MY way (aka open) then he should stand up to his decision.

Why not try think of a solution that satisfies your wants as well as everyone elses?

I'm all ears. Let us hear your solution. (Preferrably in your own suggestion-thread, though, if it's not related to mode-switching)

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Did read it all, and yupp its crazy. It does not solve any problem since the proposed problem it supposed to solve isn't a problem to begin with.

There is fundamental diffrence between a problem and something someone does not like, they can be the same but they not have to be. The mode switching isn't a problem, since the whole game from the ground up has been designed around the Idea of people having control over the matchmaking. You may not like it, but its fundamental since everything in the Game is build with in mind and changing it only creates problems.

 

[vindicator jones]

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.

Sorry mate, but this is just punishing players who dont want to play your way.

Players need the option to play any mode they want, whenever they want. And FD recognize that. I know many pilots who would prefer to play in open, and even deal with pirate players, but dont want to put up with the socially challenged. And often those commanders might find out their destination might be filled with these kinds of people and want to change modes to avoid them. Punishing them makes no sense, and forcing them to face them makes even less sense. All you will do is drive more people to solo.. and I would hate that.

You are going to catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so giving people a positive incentive to come into open is the right way to go.

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

lol, I know, but thats why I am so goddamn protective of it.. Anyway, there are commanders out there with way more than me.. its scary..

 

[Winterwalker]

So you want to go to, let's say a trade CG, turn up and attack trade ships which will have little or no shields and probably no weapons as they have to outfit for cargo space and jump range.

Broadly on the side of the OP already stated, I trade but that doesn't mean I don't carry shields. If I wanted to yes I could, strip out my ship for more tonnage, more profit I could, but I'd expect to be putting myself more at risk by doing so. If I don't suffer any drawback as a result now there's no reason at all to stay in Open play, except for personal pride. Significant numbers of people consider that's not enough, don't take my word for it, it's not my OP for one thing.

It doesn't have to be an either-or argument imo. Having NO mode switching of any kind is one of the opposite extremes. Having completely FREE switching is another, that significant proportions of (probably the next generation) of players disapprove of for various reasons. The OP suggests one way to address reaching some middle ground, it's worth discussing the merits of possible ways to do that (arguing that it shouldn't even be considered is not really relevant to a suggestion thread).

Choosing a mode is a per-session decision - that's the way that Frontier have implemented it, in accordance with their published game design.

Because of how things emerge, published game designs can (and have) changed, over time.

A mode per session would be one thing, but you'll often hear people suggest the best way forward is to run several mode sessions, per session (just switch to private to clear that landing pad etc.). FD has a policy against combat logging; the trade equivalent of combat, in trade, logging really isn't much different if you (a significant number of people seem to) want a relatively level playing field on one particular mode.

edit as ninjaaa's

You are going to catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so giving people a positive incentive to come into open is the right way to go.

Although it's a nice thought it's the rules that maketh the game .. and if modes don't stay reasonably authentic people can become disillusioned with the whole game, then you've lost them altogether.

 

[dawsonmadcow]

I agree that this is an issue with the smuggling runs (i.e.Robigo) and feel that a simpler solution to this issue and to stop people making too much money, would be to limit the missions you can have at one time to ten. You can discontinue a mission, if you feel you can't complete it etc and then free to accept another one.

 

[esxste]

lol, yeah... please do that and let me know how well it went. It is of no relevance to the topic, though.

Not well. But I was in a D-rated Vulture at the time and I picked a guy who had escorts.

You underestimate the traders. Many traders are willfully chosing to play open, because of the additional danger which is adding to their gaming experience.
My solution would help insofar as it would save us pirates the time we would otherwise waste with combat loggers and mode switchers. I would be happy if those players stayed in solo. They are only stealing my time anyway.

So other players should sacrifice the social aspect of gameplay so that your time isn't wasted. This is the issue; FD don't believe other players should be forced to do this.

No, not at all. It leaves everyone free to chose solo or group and play the game their way. But... if someone choses to play the game MY way (aka open) then he should stand up to his decision.

Don't assume that just because people choose open, that they want to play "your" way. They don't know you. How on earth could they know your very subjective opinion on how one should play in open?

I'm all ears. Let us hear your solution.

If you'd carried on reading, applied a little critical thought, you'd have an idea on how I think a solution might look.

 

[sos4biz]

I try to play as much as possible in Open play, but I also do play in Private Group and Solo, it really depends on what I am doing, i.e. winging up which (Private) friends only, trading to make more credits as I have just been ganked in (Open) and Open play to see if I can either trade dangerously or at least survive some heavy combat sessions (which does not always go my way), BUT what I don't do is trade log, i.e. get to a system and then think it's too dangerous so switch modes to avoid pirates etc etc. that also goes for combat logging not interested, so, leave it as is, if you wan't to switch modes then do it, if you don't like too, then do not do it, I am sure there are plenty of NPCs and CMDRs that will not switch modes just to avoid pirates to satisfy a pirates needs.

Stay and Fly safe CMDRs
CMDR SOS4biz

 

[vindicator jones]

Although it's a nice thought it's the rules that maketh the game .. and if modes don't stay reasonably authentic people can become disillusioned with the whole game, then you've lost them altogether.

The only thing I see people being disillusioned about are griefers, sorry socially challenged individuals and some known issues with the core gameplay

Taking away peoples right to choose they gameplay they want to engage in at any given moment, without being penalized for it, is going to cause significantly more people to get upset, for no good reason other than wanting to force players to play your way.. sorry, but its not the right answer.

 

[Mephane]

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)

You got your premise wrong. Piracy is not equivalent to PvP. Piracy can involve PvP, but just as well PvE. One can even be a pirate in solo mode. Being a pirate does not entitle anyone to other players as targets.

 

[Z Cochrane]

Of all the threads on the forum this is pure pants!

 

[sos4biz]

The only thing I see people being disillusioned about are griefers, sorry socially challenged individuals and some known issues with the core gameplay

Taking away peoples right to choose they gameplay they want to engage in at any given moment, without being penalized for it, is going to cause significantly more people to get upset, for no good reason other than wanting to force players to play your way.. sorry, but its not the right answer.

+rep and Agree.

 

[jabokai]

Put a poll on the idea. I'd vote NO!

I want an Open PvE mode and there isn't one so easy switching between Open and Private/Solo is the next best thing.

 

[vindicator jones]

Put a poll on the idea. I'd vote NO!

I want an Open PvE mode and there isn't one so easy switching between Open and Private/Solo is the next best thing.

Yes, lets put this to a vote. TO THE POLLS!!!!!!!1

 

[CMDR Heisenberg B. Damned]

Broadly on the side of the OP already stated, I trade but that doesn't mean I don't carry shields. If I wanted to yes I could, strip out my ship for more tonnage, more profit I could, but I'd expect to be putting myself more at risk by doing so. If I don't suffer any drawback as a result now there's no reason at all to stay in Open play, except for personal pride. Significant numbers of people consider that's not enough, don't take my word for it, it's not my OP for one thing.

It doesn't have to be an either-or argument imo. Having NO mode switching of any kind is one of the opposite extremes. Having completely FREE switching is another, that significant proportions of (probably the next generation) of players disapprove of for various reasons. The OP suggests one way to address reaching some middle ground, it's worth discussing the merits of possible ways to do that (arguing that it shouldn't even be considered is not really relevant to a suggestion thread).

I know forum posts aren't always (ever!) a good way of getting the point from one person to another so ... all I was saying is PvP in this case seems pretty one sided. To then post a "Won't somebody think of the Pirates" post, well it's probably not going to get a whole heap of sympathy!

I'd also say the reasoning is pretty skewed because this appears to be the extent of how much this is affecting the OP...

My solution would help insofar as it would save us pirates the time we would otherwise waste with combat loggers and mode switchers. I would be happy if those players stayed in solo. They are only stealing my time anyway.

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.

As for the idea I think FD have got it about as good as it's likely to get. I lost a ship just signing up for the Brestla CG. No cargo, limited shields, no weapons. To be fair to the first commander that stopped me they left when I told them to scan me as I had no cargo. The next one, not a single comms from them, faster ship than mine I didn't even make it to FSD, which is odd for me as I can normally get away (although I already had hull damage from the first interdiction). Don't mind the risk (it can be quite fun escaping) but wouldn't ever want to force others to have to do this. So it's a no from me - I'm happy with the way FD have it at the moment.

Anyway if the OP's issue is other commanders "stealing my time" whilst stealing the other commanders cargo AND time then I stand by my tiny tiny violin comment.