Forcing targets into an instance or out of solo

[Jukelo]

I think the original idea was NOT to be able to pull wanted players out of solo, BUT that if you committed a crime in OPEN you had to deal with it in open (and I am not 100% sure about this, but even then it may have been only crimes against Federation of Pilots members) ... which i think is fair enough.

commit a crime in solo or in private group then I do not think it was ever suggested to be able to be pulled from it.

Why would that be limited to criminals though? Anything you do has an impact on other players, so why would only criminals have to be forced into open to deal with the consequences of their actions? Fines and bounties aren't there to punish players, they're there to add depth to the gameplay of criminal professions.
As such I don't see why traders, bounty hunters, explorers and missions runners would have the option of running to solo when they want to avoid the ire of those who take umbrage with them affecting the background sim in the way they are, but somehow criminals who commit crimes in open would be punished by being forced to stick to open? What kind of double standard is that?
And if criminals are food for bounty hunters and the point of this suggestions is to help bounty hunters gain access to that food, and I agree in principle with that, then equally criminals need to have access to something similar that forces their food source, namely traders, to stay in open.

And to me, the only way to make this in a fair manner without double standards, would be as I said, to lock you into one game mode upon character creation. It's that, or no deal.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

And to me, the only way to make this in a fair manner without double standards, would be as I said, to lock you into one game mode upon character creation. It's that, or no deal.

I do see your point...... but you say "no deal" but you kind of already agreed to the deal when you bought the game..... the mechanics of how things are, along with the mechanics of how the devs hope it to be once its fully fleshed out were all outlined and the above is pretty much what was detailed.

I see your point about it not being "fair" to criminals or gankers I guess personally (and i am biased) I have a hard time sympathising with those who choose to be a criminal against other players, esp those who choose to destroy other players rather than just pirate them, either by threats or through cargo hatch force. But as I said I admit, I have my own bias there..

 

[TriumphANT]

And to me, the only way to make this in a fair manner without double standards, would be as I said, to lock you into one game mode upon character creation. It's that, or no deal.

Sadly, there are people playing the game who would make that a hard way to play, so the mechanism to "escape" as an honest player must exist, at least for just now. The idea that baddies who have gained high bounties in Open are forced to stay in Open until they are cleared is perhaps a double-edged sword for the same reasons. I suppose they can always buy a fuel scoop and go exploring.

 

[Jukelo]

Sadly, there are people playing the game who would make that a hard way to play, so the mechanism to "escape" as an honest player must exist, at least for just now. The idea that baddies who have gained high bounties in Open are forced to stay in Open until they are cleared is perhaps a double-edged sword for the same reasons. I suppose they can always buy a fuel scoop and go exploring.

But why? I don't understand the hate towards high bounties? It's like you think they're bad players somehow and should be punished?

 

[fergal]

But why? I don't understand the hate towards high bounties? It's like you think they're bad players somehow and should be punished?

Um? The bounty on them is their punishment. It means other players can attack them without themselves getting a bounty on them.

 

[Snakebite]

Then give us pirates the ability to lock traders into an instance. Otherwise no deal.

Unfortunately I am not in a position to grant that, but if you are refering to combat loggers then I have said many times that i believe that logging out during combat should result in your ship remaining in the instance under the control of an NPC pilot.

 

[TriumphANT]

But why? I don't understand the hate towards high bounties? It's like you think they're bad players somehow and should be punished?

A player who gets high bounties has committed crimes. Those bounties are MEANT to be able to be collected by other players. That's their raison d'etre, but in the current system they can be paid off simply, and in 1.3 the player can slip away into a safe group or Solo where other PCs won't attack him for his bounty. If the crimes are committed in Open, or perhaps if they're committed against other CMDRs, then that should imply that the person is open to PvP bounty hunting too to keep the scope of the Open game plausible. Slinking off into Solo until your Bounty expires doesn't really fit that for me.

 

[Jukelo]

Um? The bounty on them is their punishment. It means other players can attack them without themselves getting a bounty on them.

A bounty isn't punishment for the player. The whole idea, from a gameplay standpoint, of bounties, is to introduce a skill floor for high paying activities like crime. Below that skill floor, taking part in crime isn't worth it as you're going to get caught, but if you are more skilled than that and know getting caught isn't going to happen, then crime can be an option that is more interesting than legal activities.
Now of course, atm the balance between legal and illegal activities is completely out of whack, crime is more risky and requires more skill and effort than legal stuff, and it pays much less, which is a balance failure on FD's part, but they have stated they are working on it.
You don't punish players for in-game actions apart from the usual insulting/cheating/exploiting. If you have to punish players for somethign they do in game, it means that action should not be possible through the game to begin with. As such issuing bounties on the player isn't the devs making a moral statement about the player, it's a way to make sure only the most skilled/prepared individuals have access to the faster and harder progression paths.

Forcing criminals and only criminals to stay in open until their bounty is gone is however very much making a moral statement about the player. Having criminality be the only path to have structurally differents rules is singling out the players picking that route, very much like FD are singling out the people using cheats by sending them to their own private instances.

A player who gets high bounties has committed crimes. Those bounties are MEANT to be able to be collected by other players. That's their raison d'etre, but in the current system they can be paid off simply, and in 1.3 the player can slip away into a safe group or Solo where other PCs won't attack him for his bounty. If the crimes are committed in Open, or perhaps if they're committed against other CMDRs, then that should imply that the person is open to PvP bounty hunting too to keep the scope of the Open game plausible. Slinking off into Solo until your Bounty expires doesn't really fit that for me.

Pirates feed on traders. These tarders are MEANT to be able to be attacked by pirates to give their juicy loot, it's the raion d'être of piracy. In the current system, they can just ignore pirates completely and run to solo/group where other PCs wont attack them for their cargo. If the trading is done in Open, or perhaps if they affect other CMDRs by chaning faction influence and price in the system, then that should imply that the person is open to PvP pirating to keep the scope of Open game plausible. Slinking off into solo until you feel you no longer need to grind in a helpless T9 and can instead go to solo at the help of a fully kit anaconda doesn't really fit that for me.

Now as you see, I do agree with you in that the whole idea of switching back and forth between solo and open is IMO a terrible thing. Criminals shouldn't be allowed to hide from bounty hunters at will, but neither should traders be allowed to hide from pirates. What I take offense with, is that the system would work differently for one group or the other. Which is why I feel like your character should be locked in one game mode or the other. If you don't want to be bothered by pirates or bounty hunters, fine, pick solo and stick to it. If you want to have a more direct impact on the world around you, pick open and live with the consequences of that choice.

 

[DarkWalker]

Forcing criminals and only criminals to stay in open until their bounty is gone is however very much making a moral statement about the player. Having criminality be the only path to have structurally differents rules is singling out the players picking that route, very much like FD are singling out the people using cheats by sending them to their own private instances.

Not quite. As long as the only bounties that can lock a player in open are those obtained by directly acting against a player (killing or shooting at him, for example) then it's just a matter of enforcing the player's choice. If the player has chosen to attack other players, then it's reasonable to ask him to be a viable target to other players also.

 

[DarkWalker]

Pirates feed on traders. These tarders are MEANT to be able to be attacked by pirates to give their juicy loot, it's the raion d'être of piracy. In the current system, they can just ignore pirates completely and run to solo/group where other PCs wont attack them for their cargo. If the trading is done in Open, or perhaps if they affect other CMDRs by chaning faction influence and price in the system, then that should imply that the person is open to PvP pirating to keep the scope of Open game plausible. Slinking off into solo until you feel you no longer need to grind in a helpless T9 and can instead go to solo at the help of a fully kit anaconda doesn't really fit that for me.

And here I completely disagree with you. IMHO a player should never be forced into PvP, and if there is to be any exception it should be tied to the player having started the aggression himself. And I don't consider things like influencing the background simulation to be aggressions, so I don't thing the player should ever be forced into open for that, even if — hypothetically — a player was able to change a system's government by himself. If the game is to have more traders in open, subject to pirate attacks, then the game must make being the subject of a pirate attack an actually enjoyable experience, something players seek; otherwise, it would just be ruining the game for those players (and potentially driving them away) in an attempt to please the more bloodthirsty part of the player base.

It's the thing about games. They are not meant to be realistic, but to be enjoyable. If something in a game isn't enjoyable, it should be cut out; if it's enjoyable to some, but harms the experience of a large part of the intended player base — like this kind of unwanted PvP — then it must be made optional. This is something the players seeking PvP seem to forget; while many players crave for positive player interaction — and thus want to play, at least some of the time, in a game mode where they can meet strangers — not all of those enjoy unasked for PvP. What is enjoyable for you might make the game unworthy of wasting time with for others.

Also, moods change. Some days a player might want to be left alone, some days he might want to go looking for a fight. Allowing mode changing is part of what allows ED to tailor itself to the player's mood, what allows the game to not be simply thrown into a corner when the player doesn't feel like partaking in the specific kind of player interaction (or non-interaction) he has chosen at character creation.

 

[fergal]

A bounty isn't punishment for the player. The whole idea, from a gameplay standpoint, of bounties, is to introduce a skill floor for high paying activities like crime. Below that skill floor, taking part in crime isn't worth it as you're going to get caught, but if you are more skilled than that and know getting caught isn't going to happen, then crime can be an option that is more interesting than legal activities.
Now of course, atm the balance between legal and illegal activities is completely out of whack, crime is more risky and requires more skill and effort than legal stuff, and it pays much less, which is a balance failure on FD's part, but they have stated they are working on it.

I agree that smuggling is "out of whack" compared to normal trading.

I disagree that anything else you have said has anything to do with killing clean players.

There is no money involved in killing clean players, there is no skill floor in attacking players in weaker combat ships.

The whole idea of becoming wanted for committing a crime is to allow other ships to be able to attack you back without them facing any legal consequences.

You commit a crime against NPCs, let NPCs handle it, you can do that in Open, Solo, or Group. Commit a crime against a player in a group and you should not be able to leave that group. Commit a crime against a player in Open and you should be forced to remain in Open.

 

[Snakebite]

And here I completely disagree with you. IMHO a player should never be forced into PvP,<snip>.

Then why have space pirates in the game at all then ?

Really sick of the anti piracy lobby on these forums. Elite is a game with a central theme of trading and exploring in a Dangerous galaxy full of pirates and freebooters. Without the pirates and the assosiated risk of being attacked by one, this game would be excruciatingly boring. We need the pirate, we need the suspense and the fear.

If you don't want to face pirates, freebooters and yes the occasional griefer, then stay out of anarchy systems, or go play no-mans sky instead.

 

[bassman]

Let people play how they like, any proposition involving the words forcing and other players is a no no (except griefers they need to be horsewhipped, publicly with a very large horsewhip or whips, or a cat-o-nine tails if the cat-o-twenty tails is unavailable).

I dont see a problem with auto instancing a player who has player kill bounties out of solo when a bounty hunter is around - they made a concious choice to kill another player so they arnt being "forced" to do anything.

 

[Mercy Killing]

Boy, this is sure starting to look like that other thread, the one that just hit ten thousand posts and had to be continued.

Sure does seem like an argument between solo and open to me. Perhaps a merge is in order.

 

[Bokugo]

I haven't read the whole thing (yet?) but I think a simple check box next to the bounties name would be fine to see if they're online or not. A green check means online and in open. A grey check means online and solo. And just slap a red x if they're offline.

This would at least weed out a bunch of high bounty hiders since no one would bother going after someone who is playing solo.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Then why have space pirates in the game at all then ?

Not wanting that players are forced to do something - like PvP - is something entirely else than being against pirates. Not forcing players to do something is about choice and respect to the player. FD offered the game with 2.5 modes - solo/group mode and open mode. They offered the choice to play the game in any mode that fits the mood of the player at log-in. If the player selects solo or group mode he made clear that he doesn't want to play open mode and that he doesn't want to PvP against random players. Forcing him into open mode would be a violation of his expressed will.

And even if the game would be only open mode then you still can't force players to play the game the way you want. They still have the choice not to play the game, they have the choice to play the game at times where you - or others - don't play or they can hide in some corner of the galaxy and logging off every time they see a CMDR entering the system.

Really sick of the anti piracy lobby on these forums.…

If someone plays in open then piracy is part of the game. Some like it, others don't. If someone joins open play he basically agrees to get pirated or attacked. Maybe he hopes he won't get attacked, but he agrees to the possibility of getting attacked by going into open. If someone plays, for what ever reason, solo mode or a group mode he simply doesn't want to interact with random strangers.


To the one who wrote that this is just an other open vs. solo thread: I don't think so. In my opinion this thread touches the core of the open vs. solo debate: Choice. By doing so it it more than the open vs. solo debate.

- - - Updated - - -

I dont see a problem with auto instancing a player who has player kill bounties out of solo when a bounty hunter is around - they made a concious choice to kill another player so they arnt being "forced" to do anything.

Sure they are forced. They decided to play solo. The players they have killed made the decision to play open and knew that they could get killed. Now someone else wants to force players from solo/group into open just because … why? Those player killers somehow owe something to players who want to kill other players?

 

[Zplintz]

Because that player chose to play open so that they can get an easy kill or catch someone else in open out and then they hide in solo until the next time they fancy an easy kill. They leave the bounty hunters no one to chase and no way for the victim to exact revenge.

There is a difference between forcing everyone into open and letting someone make the choice of playing open, getting wanted and then having to stay in open until their bounty is paid off.

 

[Hell Razor5543]

I think that if a player is in the Top 5 bounties anywhere they should be forced to play Open. If a player is a serial attacker + killer (I do not include killing other wanted players or in self defence, sorry bounty hunters) they should be forced to play Open. If their fines exceed a certain level they should only have Open available to them. If this were to happen, players affected would be made clearly aware of this (e-mail, PM, etc.), and that if they tried to play Solo their fines would increase (these communications should occur if the player was in danger of being granted access to Open only status. No player should be locked into Open without being told why, and FD getting a receipt to say the e-mail or PM had been read). However, if they were trying to get clean, and they could not afford to pay off the full levels of fines, they could pay off a percentage (based on how big their bank balance was), and be allowed back into Solo to work off the fines (although they would have to pay some of the fines off every 10 trips or so, depending on profit margins, in order to be allowed continued Solo access). If, at a later date, bounty hunters were to try tracking these players down there should be a system to inform hunters that this players' criminal activities were under scrutiny, as they (the player) was making amends, and so should not be considered a viable target (unless the target were to go back to their criminal ways).

 

[Ian Phillips]

I think you all know the drill by now