Game loses something by not forcing Open play

[Jorlin]

Beta should have shown that i'm not afraid of a fight or losing an expensive ship...

Still i think the mechanic of "switching" is awesome.
Even if they give me ten character slots, there will only be one occupied...ever.
Now i can switch depending on my mood... the only thing i'm missing is a real "ghostmode", where noone can see that i'm online and not even people on my friendlist can contact me.

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

On second thought, that could even bring people to "open"...
Not being able to communicate with anyone ingame while in "solo"....

 

[Innigo]

You, Milord, are mixing up 2 things: proposal to make the game better with demanding to have everyone playing my way.

Fair enough. This is a clunky medium and misunderstandings are easy, but I am detecting a certain amount of snobbery

Please do not make enemy out of me.

Meh, I'll bet my ship is faster than yours.

We have 2 different threads here. One is the OP concern with the mod switching, another one is the carebear concern with PVP in general. I'm happy with the game the way it is (omitting the fact that after the last update I can't open my safe). All I'm doing is sharing my revelation that the game would be better if modes would be segregated. So far the opponents to this tactic are the ones who say I do not play Open anyway, but I do not want the segregation to happen. The way I see it is the imposing the gameplay on others because why would they care if they do not play Open anyways.

But you haven't made a cogent case as to why they would be better segregated. I don't see how it makes any difference APART from limiting people's choice, or rather, making their choice have longer term implications. Consider this, someone starts playing - they don't know what they're doing so they start out in solo and play for a while and once confident enough switch to open. Under your proposal that involves them starting with a stock sidewinder and 100Cr. All their progress is moot. How is that better? And my argument for the current situation is simply this - it has next to no impact on anyone else's gameplay.

If you say you play Open, but you want to avoid the encounters by diving into Solo then what's the benefit to play open to begin with?

I was using "me" in the figurative sense, sorry if that was confusing, which it was. My intent is to play open, coz my personal prediction is the galaxy's so big even a million strong playerbase will be largely lost in it. But that's not to say I don't like having choices, coz you know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe the galaxy is crowded and it's a dismal Tuesday and I want to play Elite buy can't be bothered with other people and with limited time, maintaining two characters is a pain.

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

Ok fine, but why is it a good idea for players to be able to jump between ghost and visible to all? I killed you, now let me just turn into a ghost so you cant get me back.

No can do. If you're naughty in open, you're stuck in open until someone kills you.

 

[Calebe]

All those against switching are actually asking for a smaller player base. Those who may enjoy a private group with some open play if forced will stay with the private group and one more person will never be in open play.
.
The truth of the matter is those against group switching do want to dictate how you play and limit your options, as it won't limit theirs. They want open play only, so other options aren't even a thought. The idea though that you have options they don't want or will use is a sore point with them. It is not fair you can jump from open play on Monday to solo play on Tuesday, and on Wednesday play partly in open and partly in private or solo. Heaven forbid you have choices that I don't want you to have because it effects me not one iota, nor will I ever know if you signed on to play Monday in solo mode, or Tuesday as your exploring and 1000 light years from where they are. They won't know, but somehow it makes them upset and mad you have that option.
.
I don't get it and never will, how I play this game effects them in the least if I am in solo or group play? If I venture into open play I may encounter them and they may blow my ship out of space or I do it to them if they are foolish enough to attack..... But they claim it is not about griefing so that can't possibly be it. So again what does me playing in solo mode on one day and open the next effect you at all. That is unless your goal is to attack any and every person you see, if not then we could pass by enough other and would you know or care if I was an npc or a player if griefing ahh attacking players wasn't you goal?
.
Calebe

 

[Innigo]

Well to ''i like to paly with myself'' people this is great, but to people like me who like to meet other players this ghost mode seems unfair.

Why? This is what I'm totally failing to understand. To be fair you may be envisaging exploits I haven't considered, but all I'm seeing are people who aren't in the mood for a bit of pvp but fancy a spot of a Elite of an evening. Maybe tomorrow they'll be up for some pvp, maybe not, we'll see how it goes.

Choice, without having to maintain two characters.

 

[Rolands]

Why? This is what I'm totally failing to understand. To be fair you may be envisaging exploits I haven't considered, but all I'm seeing are people who aren't in the mood for a bit of pvp but fancy a spot of a Elite of an evening. Maybe tomorrow they'll be up for some pvp, maybe not, we'll see how it goes.

Choice, without having to maintain two characters.

For some reason, playing online with other players to you means ''pvp''.
To me this game was an online game from the beginning and i want to meet as many players in it as possible and i do believe that by having this ghost mode ED losses something.
There would be no discussion if there were an offline version for people who only play alone and a normal online version for us but, instead there is this.
As i understand the reason why some people want to play alone is, ''online = obviously griefing'' i understand that, in ED if you die in type 9 with full cargo that is a big loss, but this can be fixed by better insurance options and better safe system policing.

 

[CmdrKull]

I would like it if there were certain missions that could only be accomplished in Open mode, and switching to Solo or Group would fail that mission. Make it something unique, and something likely to draw other Cmdrs to you. Maybe it only happens in a few systems. Maybe it happens in whatever conflict zone of the month.

The reward should be decent because the risk would certainly be high, but it isn't the sort of thing that "forces" people to play open if they don't want to, just a bonus for those who do.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

But you haven't made a cogent case as to why they would be better segregated. I don't see how it makes any difference APART from limiting people's choice, or rather, making their choice have longer term implications. Consider this, someone starts playing - they don't know what they're doing so they start out in solo and play for a while and once confident enough switch to open. Under your proposal that involves them starting with a stock sidewinder and 100Cr. All their progress is moot. How is that better? And my argument for the current situation is simply this - it has next to no impact on anyone else's gameplay.

I made many cases. The biggest case is that mode switching negates the territorial control and throws group battles out of the window. This will contribute to the major Elite issue of being boring repetitive and dull. One of the proposed compromised solutions was the ability to switch modes only while being docked.

I want this game to be good and my intents are purely altruistic while the pro choice supporters do not care much of the game and selfishly focus on their own experience.

 

[Matke]

As an old school player, I am looking forward to the concept of this game. Choosing to play solo and then switching to group/open mode when my friends when they are online, sounds awesome to me. It is complete freedom of play. It will make no difference to other players what so ever, how I choose to play!

 

[philux]

As an old school player, I am looking forward to the concept of this game. Choosing to play solo and then switching to group/open mode when my friends when they are online, sounds awesome to me. It is complete freedom of play. It will make no difference to other players what so ever, how I choose to play!

Except for pirates or bounty hunters that will not be able to interdict you when you are in solo....

 

[Logical Viking]

Maybe someone can explain to me so I get a better understanding. Personally I don't care if someone chooses solo or open. It's their game paid for with their money. What I don't understand is how it's fair for someone to play in solo for a period of time with no threat of PvP to gain whatever death machine they desire to build and then click over to open and unleash that death machine on anyone.

What is the problem with having both solo and open but keeping the progress separate? What is the benefit of keeping them the same? Seems in this way the only people it benefits are those who would desire to do what I say above. If it's just that someone doesn't want to be bothered or griefed or are hermits why care if you can't take all your loot and powerful death star earned in solo back to the open world?

Seriously, maybe I'm missing something so enlighten me. Otherwise I have to assume it's just for some to get what they want without risk of PvP and then be able to leverage that which was gained in open later on.

 

[Innigo]

I made many cases.

None of them cogent

The biggest case is that mode switching negates the territorial control

And that's a good thing. But here's the other thing that hasn't been mentioned (at least to my knowledge) what you want would also require the ignore function to be disabled. At the moment a player in open could theoretically ignore an entire clan and he could waltz right into their territory with impunity, and I seriously doubt that's EVER going to fly.

and throws group battles out of the window.

I don't see why. If you've got two groups who want to fight you've got a group battle. Also bear in mind Elite doesn't support the huge battles that EVE does.

This will contribute to the major Elite issue of being boring repetitive and dull.

To you maybe, large player clans locking off areas of the galaxy contributes nothing positive from my PoV. This isn't EVE and I've no desire for it to be.

One of the proposed compromised solutions was the ability to switch modes only while being docked.

I wouldn't have any problem with that.

I want this game to be good and my intents are purely altruistic while the pro choice supporters do not care much of the game and selfishly focus on their own experience.

Yes, yes, when you're done characterizing everyone who disagrees with you as somehow being awful human beings can you at least admit that what you define as "good" is entirely arbitrary and may even be a minority view :O

 

[Jevoney]

Rather glad they went this route loved the original elite games and I had / have no desire to do forced multi player...playing with friends is nice but I have no desire to do this as a mmo type game.

So bottom line is this is a very nice compromise for those of us that wanted a single player elite (imho).

 

[Innigo]

Except for pirates or bounty hunters that will not be able to interdict you when you are in solo....

Who will be completely oblivious to the fact and thus have zero impact on them.

 

[Innigo]

What is the problem with having both solo and open but keeping the progress separate?

Because you're encouraging people to make a long term choice. Since there's no in-game simulator you're forced to learn on-the-job and there's no high-sec area. You can be attacked anywhere. So if you're new to the game would it be unreasonable to err on the side of caution and start out in solo and then maybe switch to open once you're confident you know what you're doing?

Of course, if the worlds are separate you have to give up your progress and start again from scratch. Personally, I don't have the time or inclination for that, and I suspect I'm not alone, so maybe our theoretic newbie would just stick to solo and the open world loses a player and how does that help anybody?

 

[Ted Striker]

Our viewpoints on MMO sandbox are fundamentally different. I would not go that far and call our diffidence the major flaw. For you the ideal PVP environment would be something like the knight tournament where both parties are heads down, aware of what they're doing and willingly commit to it. In other words consensual.

For me the ideal sandbox is that mimics the laws of nature with no artificial constraints. Everyone can be attacked at any point whether they want it or not. Non-consensual. Rivalry happens, but as the exception of the rule. In most cases the bigger fish attacks smaller fish. This creates dangerous natural environment that I would like to play and experiment with experiencing both sides: the predator and the victim.

Fortunately for me at this point ED leans towards my model and I love it.

You are 100% correct, I only enjoy consensual PvP. I love games like War Thunder and World Of Tanks and avoid games like EVE like they're the plague. I occasionally messed around on PvP servers in games like Everquest, Dark Age Of Camelot and WoW (when I played it briefly) but was never seriously because omg it was like playing with a bunch of people from a juvenile detention center.

Maybe someone can explain to me so I get a better understanding. Personally I don't care if someone chooses solo or open. It's their game paid for with their money. What I don't understand is how it's fair for someone to play in solo for a period of time with no threat of PvP to gain whatever death machine they desire to build and then click over to open and unleash that death machine on anyone.

What is the problem with having both solo and open but keeping the progress separate? What is the benefit of keeping them the same? Seems in this way the only people it benefits are those who would desire to do what I say above. If it's just that someone doesn't want to be bothered or griefed or are hermits why care if you can't take all your loot and powerful death star earned in solo back to the open world?

Seriously, maybe I'm missing something so enlighten me. Otherwise I have to assume it's just for some to get what they want without risk of PvP and then be able to leverage that which was gained in open later on.

Complete wipe + real deterrents to piracy and it's possible. Piracy and PvP aren't necessarily the same thing so maybe you're not talking about piracy but something else. I don't know what kind of PvP there is in this game though aside from piracy - interdicting people who may not want to fight you.

What about consensual PvP? Is there a mechanic for that? Battlegrounds in MMOs are consensual. Some games by their very nature are consensual like CoD or War Thunder. In a game like ED I'd imagine there could be "battlezones" you could fly to and participate in. I know I've seen them on youtube but it's always been vs NPCs.

 

[Logical Viking]

Because you're encouraging people to make a long term choice. Since there's no in-game simulator you're forced to learn on-the-job and there's no high-sec area. You can be attacked anywhere. So if you're new to the game would it be unreasonable to err on the side of caution and start out in solo and then maybe switch to open once you're confident you know what you're doing?

Of course, if the worlds are separate you have to give up your progress and start again from scratch. Personally, I don't have the time or inclination for that, and I suspect I'm not alone, so maybe our theoretic newbie would just stick to solo and the open world loses a player and how does that help anybody?

OK but the game isn't that complex where you will need 6 months of training or experience to be able to survive an interdiction or learn to dog fight. If it is easy to exploit the game mechanics by removing the PvP threat while amassing your wealth/spaceship and then simply clicking a button where you can now unleash it I can imagine the following will happen..

-Everyone plays solo to build wealth and equipment in relative peace without too much threat beside lame NPC
-Players having done above step then only go to open mode to attack players not as yet kitted out as them, returning to solo if more CR is needed or the heat gets to hot to bear
-the players who had been trying to play the whole game in open with all the PvP risk it entails realize what is being done and then do the same
-now open mode is left to just be a PvP fest where people come to fight and then retreat to solo for re-fitting. Of course there will always be some that don't realize this yet (new and slow learning players) who will provide chum in the waters for the exploiters.

No?

 

[Cody]

Circles!

 

[Innigo]

OK but the game isn't that complex where you will need 6 months of training or experience to be able to survive an interdiction or learn to dog fight. If it is easy to exploit the game mechanics by removing the PvP threat while amassing your wealth/spaceship and then simply clicking a button where you can now unleash it

With no pvp experience to back it up it won't be long before someone blows you out the sky. This isn't just about kit, and if you do decide to go splatter someone then you get locked into the open world.

I can imagine the following will happen..

-Everyone plays solo to build wealth and equipment in relative peace without too much threat beside lame NPC

Possibly and if this the case then it can be easily countered by better missions being offered to the players in online mode (maybe)

-Players having done above step then only go to open mode to attack players not as yet kitted out as them, returning to solo if more CR is needed or the heat gets to hot to bear

Nope. See above.

-the players who had been trying to play the whole game in open with all the PvP risk it entails realize what is being done and then do the same

Really. And how do they "see" this? By the use of what magical power do they know how another player acquired their wealth?

-now open mode is left to just be a PvP fest where people come to fight and then retreat to solo for re-fitting. Of course there will always be some that don't realize this yet (new and slow learning players) who will provide chum in the waters for the exploiters.

No?

Doubtful, but that's not to say I wouldn't mind there being incentives to encourage players into the open world if it were deemed that too high a % were soloing.

 

[Logical Viking]

Complete wipe + real deterrents to piracy and it's possible. Piracy and PvP aren't necessarily the same thing so maybe you're not talking about piracy but something else. I don't know what kind of PvP there is in this game though aside from piracy - interdicting people who may not want to fight you.

What about consensual PvP? Is there a mechanic for that? Battlegrounds in MMOs are consensual. Some games by their very nature are consensual like CoD or War Thunder. In a game like ED I'd imagine there could be "battlezones" you could fly to and participate in. I know I've seen them on youtube but it's always been vs NPCs.

Yeah, I guess the type of PvP action I mean would be consider Piracy although I suppose bounty hunters could be considered too. I really thought that there would be more deterrent or consequence to being a pirate to balance it's reward. I also see no reason for not having an area one can travel to where PvP fighting for the sake of fighting would be part and parcel. It could be for a war or whatever else reason to satisfy those who just want to fight.

My point is not caring that the next guy can hide in solo to amass wealth/equipment and then come into open and I'll just feel like I have less stuff unfairly. I don't care what the next guy has as there is no scoreboard. What concerns me is that it is a potential exploit and easy mode for those who would pirate/bounty hunt/grief whatever in open compared to the guy who tries to have a whole career in open mode.

 

[Logical Viking]

Really. And how do they "see" this? By the use of what magical power do they know how another player acquired their wealth?

It matters not to the person getting blown up how the other guy got his equipment and wealth to acquire it. What does matter to him is that he sees it's too tough to do it in the open environment, reads on the forum what others are doing with the solo easy mode and then does the same. That's "seeing" if you want to call it that.