Fee for Open/Solo switching

[Psycho Romeo]

It is not? MMhh, let's see...


Massive - check
Multiplayer - check
Online - check

ED obviously is an MMO.

You know what else is massive, multiplayer, and online?
Dark/Demon Souls.
League of Legends.
Counterstrike Go.

The three words together are worth more than the sum of their parts. ED is not an MMO, by definition of the term. This is obvious to anyone who would spend more than 10 seconds thinking about it.

 

[Winterwalker]

You can't have equally valid and available modes to choose from, if you can no longer choose from them at will. I can't give examples as we've been asked not to.

Fair enough on example giving. However, you can change at will if either, charged 1% (cool because it scales according to Commander xp) or even with the more hardcore I admit, choose at new Commander save. The major problem as I see it with current system is you have a switch in the cockpit .. to "clear that occupied landing pad for me" or "disappear that blockade".

These are for me "switch to" modes and although there are some valid reasons (probably for children if playing) for starting in solo and switching to group or open at a later date, something is lost if there's no risk (and it's already pretty much impossible to die).

Another possibility could be a "token" system .. where your Commander is (at new save) given three tokens to change mode. If once you've spent those you're done, now only important reasons would make you switch?

 

[Hooplah]

I switch all the time depending upon my mood and current goals. Sometimes I'll jump to many systems in Open looking for other CMDRs along the way. Other times I don't want to be bothered so Solo is best while I concentrate on a demanding task. Solo also works when sitting at a station while deciding trade routes and out of respect not causing instance issues for the Open players. Back to open when I leave and say, "Hi" to anyone around.

Logout/login to refresh a BB is totally acceptable to move along the already slow process of obtaining the goal a player is striving for. Using the same in PvP combat is frowned upon but that is why the 15 second delay was implemented. It's actually redundant as a working FSD can produce the same results. No FSD then it is another player feature which all can use including the PvP Pirate that interdicted you if he/she is losing the battle. Taking away a feature because a player cannot complete a kill in the time allowed is not everyone else's problem to resolve.

I like the ability to play Solo, switch to Open to see who is there, switch to several private groups to see if friends are close, then back to Solo to check my trade routes...all within minutes. These are acceptable procedures that are allowed without forfeiture or punishment. Switching enhances gameplay rather than taking away from it.

So many post on the forum with a narrow direction of what the game should be without the consequences of how it will effect so many others that do not share that direction. Suggestions like this simply take away many player's options to promote another player's desires. Welcome to Elite Dangerous.

 

[Winterwalker]

snip ... Suggestions like this simply take away many player's options to promote another player's desires. Welcome to Elite Dangerous.[/SIZE]

I don't think that's the aim of the OP however and with the current system, of course, you've found this possible way to play. Question is, would you really lose anything if this (modes, plural) didn't exist and what effect might it have on the wider community, in terms of developing an immersive and technically, scientifically (physically) accurate game space.

For instance, one example you give is on clearing yourself off the landing pad so I can land, but maybe waiting gives the galaxy a more occupied feel. Another example, logout/login to refresh a BB is, logging .. not "during combat" but it's playing meta as; trading is the trading career's form, of combat.

 

[vindicator jones]

With my current total assets of well over 1.5 billion, not a chance in hell....

What about all those people who sometimes need to log out for a few minutes, or want to change their playstyle.. you want to penalize them for doing so? this is utterly ludicrous..

Sorry OP this is a very very very bad idea.

 

[Bortas]

You know what else is massive, multiplayer, and online?
Dark/Demon Souls.
League of Legends.

Never heard of those so I can't comment.

Counterstrike Go.

Yes, counterstrike is not an MMO, because there are thousands of servers which don't share the same game world. In ED otoh all players share the same universe.

ED has over one million of players all playing online sharing the same game universe... that's exactly the definition of an MMO.

ED is not an MMO, by definition of the term. This is obvious to anyone who would spend more than 10 seconds thinking about it.

Quite the opposite is true. ED is an MMO by definition of the term. This is obvious to anyone who would spend more than 10 seconds thinking about it.
Even FDev themselves are advertising ED as an MMO on Steam, so sorry, but I will take their judgement over yours.

Fair enough on example giving. However, you can change at will if either, charged 1% (cool because it scales according to Commander xp) or even with the more hardcore I admit, choose at new Commander save. The major problem as I see it with current system is you have a switch in the cockpit .. to "clear that occupied landing pad for me" or "disappear that blockade".

Exactly. The suggestion wouldn't affect any of the kickstarter promises, since you could still switch between the modes any time you want and as often as you want. The only thing that would change... behold... players would have to think about wether it is really necessary or not.

I have heard only very weak arguments from the opposers... like the need to quickly switch to open to say hello. Sorry, but that's nothing compared to all the game-breaking issues the abuse of the mode switching induces. The Devs sure were well-intentioned with their original design decision, but I think they didn't expect the magnitude of ruthlessness with which many players are exploiting this in ways which were certainly not intended.

But yeah... the cheat- and exploit-approval-crowd is strong in this forum and will torpedo anything that could hinder them from using their beloved exploits with strawman arguments ad nauseum.

 

[Winterwalker]

With my current total assets of well over 1.5 billion, not a chance in hell....

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)

What about all those people who sometimes need to log out for a few minutes

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

or want to change their playstyle.. you want to penalize them for doing so?

Clear save, use a mode token, or costs you (a mere) 1%.
Serious question, how does changing modes affect playstyle?

Now, you could argue that the playerbase is already split and that some of your friends already play in different modes (group as opposed to open, as solo doesn't count here) so you might have to choose which are your best friends, but that would be the worst of it wouldn't it?

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Yes, counterstrike is not an MMO, because there are thousands of servers which don't share the same game world. In ED otoh all players share the same universe.

ED has over one million of players all playing online sharing the same game universe... that's exactly the definition of an MMO.

Quite the opposite is true. ED is an MMO by definition of the term. This is obvious to anyone who would spend more than 10 seconds thinking about it.

No, ED is not an MMO by definition of the term. Yes, we all influence a thing. But this doesn't define an MMO. Many single player games share a leaderboard, or influence some thing shared between players.

An MMO by definition of the term (as opposed to the defenition of the individual words) has to do with how the game facilitates interaction between the players. ED is full if instancing and segregation, and this definitely outside the defining parameters of the term MMO.

Even FDev themselves are advertising ED as an MMO on Steam, so sorry, but I will take their judgement over yours.

Jesus. Spend 10 seconds thinking about this instead of spouting nonsense. They just as readily advertise it as both single player and multiplayer. Seeing as there's not three separate game universes to facilitate this, there is clearly some very clear inconsistency with this picture, is there not? Sorry, you may take their judgement all you want but the rest of us will remain on the side of logic and reason in this debate.

 

[Winterwalker]

No, ED is not an MMO by definition of the term. Yes, we all influence a thing. But this doesn't define an MMO. Many single player games share a leaderboard, or influence some thing shared between players.

To be fair, it doesn't really matter (MMO/non MMO) .. it's ED, call it a brand new game. Seems a shame if semantics were to torpedo the thread. The OP doesn't suggest removing the three modes, only to make them a bit stickier.

 

[Bortas]

An MMO by definition of the term (as opposed to the defenition of the individual words) has to do with how the game facilitates interaction between the players. ED is full if instancing and segregation, and this definitely outside the defining parameters of the term MMO.

World of Warcraft is full of segregation, too... the playerbase isn't just split between instances but between servers. By your definition, World of Warcraft - the epitome of an MMO - is not an MMO.

Sorry, you may take their judgement all you want but the rest of us will remain on the side of logic and reason in this debate.

Maybe you should tell that FDEV. They think they made an MMO, but you know better. But let's stop this pointless argument now. You keep thinking ED is not an MMO and everyone else, including the Developers, keep thinking it is one.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

The OP doesn't suggest removing the three modes, only to make them a bit stickier.

And I agreed with the concept, just not its exact implementation. OP is the one who leveraged the semantics against my post.

Using a specific aspect of the character (example, assets) to make the modes 'stickier' is not a good approach in my opinion. There's a disconnect between what mode switching means to a character (different universe), and what is being suggested to be put at stake (assets). I outlined this in my post on the previous page.

A more appropriate line of thought would be to have the player stake something that is more in line with the relationship between mode switching and the player. For example, people who switch modes often will be matched with others who switch modes more often. People who stay in open exclusively will be matched with others who stay in open exclusively more often. The intention here isn't to suggest this specifically, but rather, to change the 'cost' (assets) into something that is equally meta as the concept of mode switching itself. I don't have a better idea of what that could be other than what I just suggested here, and I don't really feel what I suggested here is necessarily 'sticky' enough to really cause the player to need to make a meaningful decision.

World of Warcraft is full of segregation, too... the playerbase isn't just split between instances but between servers. By your definition, World of Warcraft - the epitome of an MMO - is not an MMO.

WoW has a huge amount of MMO infrastructure that definitely brings it into the definition of MMO - but please, do continue to ignore the meat of my post so you can make an argument that is convenient to you. I do not blame you for only being able to argue against a fraction of what I have posted.

Maybe you should tell that FDEV. They think they made an MMO, but you know better. But let's stop this pointless argument now. You keep thinking ED is not an MMO and everyone else, including the Developers, keep thinking it is one.

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of pages of threads and posts discussing how not-MMO ED is.

You must be new here.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Hello. The ONLY reason this discussion is still open is that it was opened with a suggestion, and is in the suggestions forum.

If it devolves into yet another variant of the Solo vs Open debate the discusion will be redirected to the existing thread for that subject.

Please keep to the topic as outlined in the OP. Thank you.

 

[Winterwalker]

A more appropriate line of thought would be to have the player stake something that is more in line with the relationship between mode switching and the player. For example, people who switch modes often will be matched with others who switch modes more often. People who stay in open exclusively will be matched with others who stay in open exclusively more often. The intention here isn't to suggest this specifically, but rather, to change the 'cost' (assets) into something that is equally meta as the concept of mode switching itself. I don't have a better idea of what that could be other than what I just suggested here, and I don't really feel what I suggested here is necessarily 'sticky' enough to really cause the player to need to make a meaningful decision.

Yes, match-making looks like another way to crack the same nut.

We have so far;

Charge of 1% (except for Cmdr VJ make that 59% obviously, and obviously, joking ).
Matchmaking.
A number of tokens.
Choose at Clear Save.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I have heard only very weak arguments from the opposers... like the need to quickly switch to open to say hello. Sorry, but that's nothing compared to all the game-breaking issues the abuse of the mode switching induces. The Devs sure were well-intentioned with their original design decision, but I think they didn't expect the magnitude of ruthlessness with which many players are exploiting this in ways which were certainly not intended.

It's usually the PvP players who complain that others can exercise their freedom of choice - a freedom that every player has been offered by the core features of the game.

To seek to restrict access to Open - which is what a fee on mode switching would do - seems rather an odd way to encourage players to play in Open.

With the existence of Private Groups of indeterminate maximum size (18,500 and counting on the largest known), it is fairly obvious that Private Groups would cater to the needs of players who do not wish to be financially penalised when deciding how many players they wish to play with in a particular game session. Solo is possible by playing in one's own Private Group (to which no other players have access); a Private Group with friends only would allow playing with just friends; a more well known and populated Private Group would satisfy the need to play with others.

If a charge / delay for mode switching were to be introduced then it may serve to discourage players from switching out of Open - it would almost certainly discourage players from switching *back* to Open (given that PvP can incur more losses in populated areas) - and I would expect a free-to-access (i.e. no mode switching charge or delay) open-access Private Group would become known as the place to go for players who do not wish to be penalised for choosing how many players to play with on a session-by-session basis.

 

[Bortas]

Hello. The ONLY reason this discussion is still open is that it was opened with a suggestion, and is in the suggestions forum.

If it devolves into yet another variant of the Solo vs Open debate the discusion wil de redirected to the existing thread for that subject.

Please keep to the topic as outlined in the OP. Thank you.

Hello, yes we shoudln't slip into another solo/open discussion. This discussion is _not_ about which mode is better. The suggestion just utilizes a change to the switching-mechanics in order to address several grave problems which are not directly linked to the modes themselves.

Should the thread be further derailed please just close it (although I hope this won't be necessary) instead of merging it into a trash-thread, so the devs can still read it. Thanks.

 

[SirGirard]

To the OP and LP.........What "GRAVE" problems?

 

[StuF]

love this thread - a fee to switch modes

hahaahahahaa

would be the death of open - period

now more pewpew for the leet uber manly pvp ultimate battlehardened cmdrs

it should be implimented immediatly

 

[Lestat]

this suggestion sounds like something from someone who has a group that dose blockage and such and tired of people who don't care to be part of it.

So Hell no

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Mostly (I am not saying in THIS case) it boils down to "I HAVE NOT ENOUGH UNWILLING NOOBS TO PEWPEWPEW !!!!ONE!ELEVEN!!!"

now more pewpew for the leet uber manly pvp ultimate battlehardened cmdrs

It's about getting some amount of consistency with the galaxy. If you play in one mode, you should reap the consequences and benefits of that mode. The core suggestion is trying to punish the idea of switching to the mode that is convenient for you at the time, and motivate the CMDR to have some amount of consistency.

To draw a parallel, explorers enjoy being in the middle of nowhere have to endure the consequence of being separated from their friends in the bubble. In opposition, players who enjoy the safety of solo do not have to endure the consequence of being segregated from their friends in open.

 

[Mephane]

1% worth of your total assets in credits

That alone is totally crazy. Regardless of the fee in and of itself being a bad idea, scaling it off someone's total assets... you do know that income doesn't scale that much at all with the stuff you own. Having 100m in assets (which is, like, you sold all your ships to afford just got a mediocre Python and have some spare cash for rebuy) would already mean the fee would be 1 million credits.

And for some of your reasoning...

- 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

... you do realize that this is exactly one of the use cases the different modes are absolutely intended for?