Game loses something by not forcing Open play

[Stormprooter]

and Y looks like open legs?

unfortunately no

I wasn't going to mention the open legs thing

Anyway, I think the correct response is there are no real answers to such rhetorical questions, we are meant to ask ourselves and think about things a bit more

 

[Tyr07]

The whole concept of "abuse control" is specious at best. Anything brought in to either prevent forced PvP or prevent people switching at will only plays in to the hands of the opposing group.

Example (assuming open only play);

Trader A gets bored with trading and mining, swaps to a combat ship and goes to LTT 15449 (randomly picked for example), docks, does a final check before looking to engage.
PvPer B mulling around LTT 15449 sees a new ship undock at the local station with a PvP flag on, thinks Bingo! - Trader A sucks at PvP, couldn't hit the side of the station let alone PvPer B.

Trader A gets annoyed with how bad they suck, thinks that's enough, half a dozen deaths, cash running low - back to trading to get the reserves back up. PvPer B had a great time showing Trader A who is boss.
So Trader treis to leave the area and go back to traiding, but PvPer B is not finished and wants more kills..... oh dear, PvPer B has a wake scanner, Trader A cannot get away and keeps spawning at LTT 15449
Even when asked PvP B won't let Trader A leave, so trader goes to turn the PvP flag off... opps, cannot change flag status for 6 hours.... Trader A has no choice to but to log out and not play any more and due to the actions will never again turn the PvP flag back on.

1 less target for PvPer B from now on and all other PvP players lost out as well.

Okay, your point as valid parts but, here we go.

Trade A happens to be a natural at space combat, and it quite good. They have been trading safely for awhile now, and able to afford their combat ship. It turns (arbitary) to be a class A combat ship with keyboardfacesmashes anything it fires at.

PVPer B happens to okay at space combat as well, has been doing it this entire time. However as such, he has encountered significant losses as well, ammo expenses, repairs, other players not being easy targets and kill him instead, or just being killed.
They work hard, have taken their lumps and given as well as they have gotten. They happen to have a good rank, but are only flying a class C ship.

Trader A launchers and sees PVPer B leaving the station. Trader A decides he has spent a lot of money on his upgrades and it's time to test them out.
Trader A interdicts PVPer B. Although PVPer B is a bit better of a pilot, it didn't matter, the first two shots from Trader A killed him before he could even manuver.

PVPer B has a friend who happens to be in a Class A ship, Pvper C. PVPer C comes to get revenge. Trader A docks and switches back to solo mode or turns off the pvp flag.

The concept of abuse control is that you get to make a decision to engage in pvp combat, but at your own risk. It's fair, you make a choice, you may have won, you may have lost.
Everyone is under the same rules, and no one can hide perfectly safe until they're more powerful than you and selectively, cherry picking their times of engagement.

I realize there is no real perfect solution, but I know if this happens to me a few times, this game will also lose a player in those scenarios. I'm not here to be exploited, and I don't want other people to be exploited, I just think that people who want to play a certain way should have to accept the consequences.

 

[FoxTwo]

Actually it's instanced...you can quit and come back, mine the same astroid -_-

As I understand it, the entire belt is not instanced... only that "ring A 1" is instanced to you. If you go away on vacation for a month, and in the mean time many commanders would have come to the same belt and mined it too. It won't stay "pristine" for long. By the time u log in again 1 month later, the server data will say "it's been mined 250,000 times, it's now common resources, no longer pristine" and gives you an instanced "Ring A 1" with common percentages instead of pristine percentages.

Unless, I have understood incorrectly of course, and that each time you log in the server will spawn a pristine state for you as when you've left it. If so, then FD couldn't have made the claim that the universe is "dynamic" anymore methinks.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

If I'm stepping over the broken body of CMDR X 30 seconds later, and am reading CMDR X's forum thread, "Hax! How can a Type-6 out-turn my Asp, make my 6 gimbals miss him, then lose my target lock? Hax!"... it was CMDR X from 100% Solo Mode.

I wasn't going to mention the open legs thing

Anyway, I think the correct response is there are no real answers to such rhetorical questions, we are meant to ask ourselves and think about things a bit more

The correct answer is of course, both asps belong to X and Y at the same time. Being in hyperspace they are in a state of quantum superposition and are of course both full time SP and full time MP players at the same time

 

[TheEponymousBob]

Actually it's instanced...you can quit and come back, mine the same astroid -_-

I'm hoping that this is (or will be) dependent on some sort of macroscopic state. So yes, changing instance could allow a player to re-mine the "same" asteroid, but only if some total resource amount for the cluster/belt remained above some amount (which could be zero, or could somehow trigger a decreasing probability mechanism).

 

[Stormprooter]

PVPer B has a friend who happens to be in a Class A ship, Pvper C. PVPer C comes to get revenge. Trader A docks and switches back to solo mode or turns off the pvp flag.

I'm pretty sure commanders who commit murders cannot just go back to hide in solo/private group, I am sure I read something about a mechanic to prevent this - I am now wondering if I read that here or dreamt it. Can anyone else confirm/refute this ??

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

The correct answer is of course, both commanders, being in hyperspace are in a state of quantum superposition are of course both full time SP and full time MP players at the same time

Hehehe, Schrodinger's Asp

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Look. Space is big, right. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space. And in any case, even in open it is possible for you to be in the same system as someone and not see them because of the way matching works. You are flying around in Ford Fiesta sized space ships wondering where everyone is.

As many others have testified, you can play for a week in the frontier regions and turn up with two human contacts and they're trading. What is it to you that someone sharing that same vast, mind-bogglingly bigger than your seat to the beer fridge (yeah - I know, a fridge just for beer) cannot be seen by you?

That's the design: It's fixed. No amount of jumping up and down and waving your arms will make it change. This is what it is. Like it or find another game to play. You have Choice. "We can never see past the choices we don't understand."
"Are you saying I have to choose whether I do Solo or Open?"
"No, you've already made the choice. Now you have to understand it."
"No. I can't do that. I won't."
"Well you have to."
"Why."
"Because you're the one."

We are all here to do what we are all here to do... Unplug guys... relax.

 

[Finwolven]

So many have pointed out that 'well I don't see anyone anyways'. Guess what's going to happen 16th Dec? The amount of players will multiply by at least an order of magnitude, if not a few orders of magnitude. And at least at first, they will all be online a significant portion of their free time. Sure, you can get out so far from the starting area that you still won't see anyone, but odds are if you don't take active steps to avoid everyone, you will find space a little less 'vast' than you've previously expected.

That is, unless all of the new players who have been looking at E: D as an MMO decide arbitrarily that they'd rather solo play all the time.

(and yes, if only a portion of those newbies does so, it'll still multiply the new 'open always' players by the same factor as are 'open' players compared to 'solo' players now)

 

[Theodrid]

So, although not for a few pages I see the 'safe' and 'carebear' comments polluting this thread as it has done the others on the subject. What some of you 'open only' pvp guys need to realise is that the 'safe' and 'carebear' types are not the ones you have a problem with, they are not the ones you should direct your angst at. Let me explain, a guy/girl that currently plays solo that wants to trade and explore in this game is very, very unlikely to become a pvper overnight and jump into open and start shooting people up in a tooled up ship. Those that play solo because of a poor internet connection are less than likely to jump into open and shoot people when they are 'tooled up', those that have joined pve only groups, lets haxard a guess, because they like and want pve are not going to become hardcore pvpers overnight either....I could go on, the list is extensive but hopefully you get my point.

The other side of this is the irrational fear you are showing, some of you guys throw around terms like 'too scared for open' but it is you who are scared, scared of a concept, an idea that is not proven, scared of something that, even if it did happen, you would never, ever know how that ship that killed you was obtained, it is quite ridiculous.

So, instead of threads with titles such as 'game loses something by not forcing open play' how about you guys go and make threads entitled, 'hey, some of you pvp jerks that may exploit solo - stop'. Then, at the very least, you guys that seem to think that pvp was ever intended to be play a big part in this game can go and argue amongst yourselves, talk about the 'moral shortcomings' of a percentage of the pvp community and stop wrongly calling out those that simply DO NOT WANT TO PVP.

Most of that is of course based on the rather large assumption that this problem actually does/will exist beyond a very small number of pvpers, always strikes me as a bit strange that the only ones who come up with these sort of 'exploit conspiracies' in relation to open/solo are pvp advocates, I think this says more about many of you than you will ever admit.

An Open Player

 

[Tyr07]

So, although not for a few pages I see the 'safe' and 'carebear' comments polluting this thread as it has done the others on the subject. What some of you 'open only' pvp guys need to realise is that the 'safe' and 'carebear' types are not the ones you have a problem with, they are not the ones you should direct your angst at. Let me explain, a guy/girl that currently plays solo that wants to trade and explore in this game is very, very unlikely to become a pvper overnight and jump into open and start shooting people up in a tooled up ship. Those that play solo because of a poor internet connection are less than likely to jump into open and shoot people when they are 'tooled up', those that have joined pve only groups, lets haxard a guess, because they like and want pve are not going to become hardcore pvpers overnight either....I could go on, the list is extensive but hopefully you get my point.

The other side of this is the irrational fear you are showing, some of you guys throw around terms like 'too scared for open' but it is you who are scared, scared of a concept, an idea that is not proven, scared of something that, even if it did happen, you would never, ever know how that ship that killed you was obtained, it is quite ridiculous.

So, instead of threads with titles such as 'game loses something by not forcing open play' how about you guys go and make threads entitled, 'hey, some of you pvp jerks that may exploit solo - stop'. Then, at the very least, you guys that seem to think that pvp was ever intended to be play a big part in this game can go and argue amongst yourselves, talk about the 'moral shortcomings' of a percentage of the pvp community and stop wrongly calling out those that simply DO NOT WANT TO PVP.

Most of that is of course based on the rather large assumption that this problem actually does/will exist beyond a very small number of pvpers, always strikes me as a bit strange that the only ones who come up with these sort of 'exploit conspiracies' in relation to open/solo are pvp advocates, I think this says more about many of you than you will ever admit.

An Open Player

Exactly! I've said it in a few posts back, I'm not concerned with people who aren't really in to pvp, my concern is the guys that are even more hard core than I am to an extreme where they'll use solo to safely progress and then pvp the .... out of us open players. I've seen these people, I've seen them use exploits in other games similar to offline / protected modes so you can't retaliate or properly defend yourselves. They are coming.

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

I'm hoping that this is (or will be) dependent on some sort of macroscopic state. So yes, changing instance could allow a player to re-mine the "same" asteroid, but only if some total resource amount for the cluster/belt remained above some amount (which could be zero, or could somehow trigger a decreasing probability mechanism).

What would be nice is if it reflected your mining more accurately. Either you shouldn't be able to logout and back in to get more roids, or you should be able to keep mining until it's exhausted for everyone.

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

I'm pretty sure commanders who commit murders cannot just go back to hide in solo/private group, I am sure I read something about a mechanic to prevent this - I am now wondering if I read that here or dreamt it. Can anyone else confirm/refute this ??

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



Hehehe, Schrodinger's Asp

I don't think I've seen anything that stops someone from 'save and exit' -> start -> solo mode.

 

[Jockey79]

Look. Space is big, right. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space. And in any case, even in open it is possible for you to be in the same system as someone and not see them because of the way matching works. You are flying around in Ford Fiesta sized space ships wondering where everyone is.

As many others have testified, you can play for a week in the frontier regions and turn up with two human contacts and they're trading.

I keep seeing this, but a friend and I went in to open for the first time a few days ago (private group was playing up and we wanted to trade some stuff - so off to open we went).

First thing I seen in open was 4 human players and one was blown up by the station within moments of me undocking - I just escaped the crossfire on the way out.
So not everyone is alone and lost in space.

My entire time in open was less than 5 minutes. Figured I'd rather not risk being caught in crossfire again. (Was LHS 1914 btw)

 

[Betelgeuse]

Solo and multiplayer should not have a shared account. Solo shouldn't have any effect on the multiplayer economy.

It is working as designed and will not change for the release on 16th.

Forum is here to express opinions but as this subject has many on both sides of the argument it will not sway FD to make changes.

Whether this design is gamebreaking enough not to play at all is a choice each person who feels strongly about this must make for themselves.

I know what I will do.

 

[Tyr07]

It is working as designed and will not change for the release on 16th.

Forum is here to express opinions but as this subject has many on both sides of the argument it will not sway FD to make changes.

Whether this design is gamebreaking enough not to play at all is a choice each person who feels strongly about this must make for themselves.

I know what I will do.

Maybe not, but if enough paying players who will hopefully purchase future DLC's / Expansion from them express a particular desire, they may see the problem (If it turns up as I expect) and it may change the future of the game at some point. I think people should continue to post as to why it's good the way it is, or as my view is that they should be separate to avoid methods of pvp exploitation.

 

[ianw]

Scenario
One of these commanders, (neither of which have any human murders and you have never met before) traded fully in open, he hates solo play and he would rather die than go group, he hates groups! The other has made his way through solo play and has only just recently come to open play. They are both about to attack you depending on the destination of your next jump.

Question
1. Which is which
2. Show your working out as to how you have worked this out.


go!

Isn't there a block of ice that melts or something? There's always something fiendish like that in these type of trick questions...

:S

 

[Kramster]

Exactly! I've said it in a few posts back, I'm not concerned with people who aren't really in to pvp, my concern is the guys that are even more hard core than I am to an extreme where they'll use solo to safely progress and then pvp the .... out of us open players. I've seen these people, I've seen them use exploits in other games similar to offline / protected modes so you can't retaliate or properly defend yourselves. They are coming.

Not sure if I understand your meaning. But if I do, it seems you are saying that, because there are some exploiters around then all legit paying customers should have a play-style decision forced upon them to protect open players from other players who pvp and don't play by your rules.
.
Players exploiting games systems should not be used as a reason to reduce legit players enjoyment and options.
.
EDIT: this topic seems to have gone from 'why don't we all play together' to one about preventing pvpers from upsetting pvpers at the expensive of choice.

 

[TheEponymousBob]

What would be nice is if it reflected your mining more accurately. Either you shouldn't be able to logout and back in to get more roids, or you should be able to keep mining until it's exhausted for everyone.

Oh indeed. I was approaching it from the assumption that that is hard/impossible, and thinking more about some sort of compromise.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Maybe not, but if enough paying players who will hopefully purchase future DLC's / Expansion from them express a particular desire, they may see the problem (If it turns up as I expect) and it may change the future of the game at some point.

Thankfully there is no subscription - thereby negating the ability of elements of the player-base to attempt to strong-arm Frontier to make changes to the game.

 

[Tyr07]

Thankfully there is no subscription - thereby negating the ability of elements of the player-base to attempt to strong-arm Frontier to make changes to the game.

In more than one way, Robert.

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

Not sure if I understand your meaning. But if I do, it seems you are saying that, because there are some exploiters around then all legit paying customers should have a play-style decision forced upon them to protect open players from other players who pvp and don't play by your rules.
.
Players exploiting games systems should not be used as a reason to reduce legit players enjoyment and options.
.
EDIT: this topic seems to have gone from 'why don't we all play together' to one about preventing pvpers from upsetting pvpers at the expensive of choice.

Keep in mind that you're simply stating your choice should not impact your enjoyment of the game but it's okay if your choice impacts other peoples style of play. This is like discussion which style of play is more valid and has more rights if you approach it your way.

If people are exploiting then you are still forcing legit customers to change their play style. They're not going to just sit there and be cannon fodder for people who abuse the system.

 

[bamber]

I'm in an area that has a couple of cracking trade routes has good mining and I'm plAying in open

Last time I saw a real player was last Friday.

Had quite a few close fights and faced danger and died

I am in open play - flying solo.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In more than one way, Robert.

You have caught my interest with that comment - in what other ways, please?

Keep in mind that you're simply stating your choice should not impact your enjoyment of the game but it's okay if your choice impacts other peoples style of play. This is like discussion which style of play is more valid and has more rights if you approach it your way.

If people are exploiting then you are still forcing legit customers to change their play style. They're not going to just sit there and be cannon fodder for people who abuse the system.

To quote Sandro:

The way it's currently standing, players will be able to enter and leave private groups of some sort reasonably easily, so they will be able to control the level of perceived griefing they want to suffer.

I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

• 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.

The worst case scenario here is that a player who wants to avoid an encounter will vanish into a private group. In this case, the player will be forced to escape conventionally first (via hyperspace, docking or something similar).