Modes Idea for game mode resources being non transferable

[Robert Maynard]

The more I go on this forum, the more sympathy I have for frontier ��

I know, right.

It's clear that there are some players who don't accept Frontier's fundamental design decisions, just as it is clear that some players do. Can't please them all....

 

[m0rl0ck]

I know, right.

It's clear that there are some players who don't accept Frontier's fundamental design decisions, just as it is clear that some players do. Can't please them all....

I dont mind their design decisions, except for the engineers in total. I just cant beleive they are either so incapable, or so accepting of incompentence, that the same bugs exist after two years.
Sure they move them around a bit and repackage them, but its the same bugs after two years. Thats what es me off.

 

[Duc_Mallard]

And so it was decreed that things must never change.
And the practice of complaining must continue.

 

[m0rl0ck]

And so it was decreed that things must never change.
And the practice of complaining must continue.

Which results in change, (unless you are the FD mission dept.) sometimes for the better.

 

[Frank Craft]

And so it was decreed that things must never change.
And the practice of complaining must continue.

So, a game mechanic that's been in place for several years likely will not change and you can't get your own way?

 

[Iskariot]

The idea is: what happens in a mode stays in a mode. Wanna play single player fine.
Wanna play open fine.
Wanna play both , fine.
But your stuff in one does not exist in the other.
This means pvpers can't hide in solo when in their taxi ship to CG, and then switch to open when they feel safe in their fdls.
This means bgs/pp can't be manipulated from another mode, but played in whichever mode suits you. But no one misses out.
This means pvpers can't farm in solo, they'd have to trade in open.
It means there is a natural nerf to credit exploits as people would be fighting to get on pads. Which would also be interesting because people would have to bring enough firepower when trading.
And best thing about this is that it would populate open more. Because you would have to do everything in open. Which may also mean that people would understand each other more, because they would have to engage in activities they didn't feel safe doing with other people around. Like how they now force lorry drivers to go cycling on busy roads now. Sympathy often succeeds where empathy fails.
Most of my points here have been highlighting it's impact on pvpers. I am a pvper. I did this so that the conversation doesn't devolve into, "the bad men are trying to hurt me" .
I think this is what elite needs, and would benefit PvP and PvE.

I would support this only if you take it a small step further: simply separate the solo game completely from the multiplayer game.
This would free the solo game from the awful suffocating multiplayer shackles and balancing nonsense.
The FDev solo team could then start to develop:
- an off line mode,
- allow for modding,
- add npc crew mechanics,
- add npc wing mechanics,
- add an awesome solo story campaign
etc. etc. etc.

Only then Elite Dangerous would be able to become the glorious spacesim it should be.
As long as the game is held captive by multiplayer shenanigans it will never become what it deserves to be.

AND...
This would be good for multiplayer too.

 

[JonesTheFilm]

And so it was decreed that things must never change.
And the practice of complaining must continue.

One thing I think I've learned from these forums is you can't mess with The Modes. The Modes are sacred. The Modes are never going to change. Ever.

I firmly believe the reason FD created a separate 'Modes of Elite' forum is to keep a whole section of essentially irrelevant discussion from cluttering up the rest of the place.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Why is it not tagged with "ohnonotagain" tag? Also, mods. You're slipping here, hotel california is that way ->.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And so it was decreed that things must never change.
And the practice of complaining must continue.

Things will change - probably not these things, but other things will no doubt be amended or added.

If the change proposed in the OP was made, is there an expectation that complaining would cease?

I should add that I am not opposed to *additions* to the game that offer meaningful gameplay for those players who prefer PvP.

In that spirit, the following is a previously expressed proposal that would achieve many of the aims of the OP:

3) Add an new Start Option: "Locked Open" to the game:

• New non-shared galaxy state including all game features, initially a fork of the existing galaxy state - only able to be affected by players who select Locked Open;
• Single game mode: Open;
• One-time choice between existing tri-mode game and Locked-Open after no more than 24 hours of play-time.
• Option to leave Locked-Open after one-time choice - never to return.

 

[Darkfyre99]

This malarkey again.

I like the modes as is. Unlike similar games I’ve played in the past, I’ve found the amount of player-killer activity to be at worst tolerable, at best in the “Is that a PK? Let’s play!” range.

I attribute this to the modes system. It’s created a situation where the “significant majority” of players who are in Open aren’t exactly easy kills for player-killers, who eventually get bored and move to games with better killing fields. Forcing players to develop unique saves for each mode will ensure that most of players will choose either Solo or Private Groups, since Open can be an acquired taste.

 

[Jockey79]

.... since Open can be an acquired taste.

Open =

 

[Mouse]

Open =

Funny thing is I actually like Marmite... and Vegemite.

And Welcome to the forums, I know some will be happy to see fresh brand new accounts spouting Open Only. If that is the type of game you want. May I direct your attention to EVE Online.

Otherwise I hope you did your research on the game before buying, if not then I am sorry that it isn't like you want.

 

[Captain Willard]

Otherwise I hope you did your research on the game before buying.

Evidently not after reading this thread. It is comical tho.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

LOL @ not realising the modes are just names for game client connectivity modes.

LOL @ not understanding we all play the same damn game - just with varying degrees of "which game client connects with other game clients"

LOL @ a bad idea based on lack of the above knowledge.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

I wonder when they'll start forcing coppers to throw back a few pills and dance for 9 hours straight..?

I advocate that!

For realsies we've actually had a few get dow for a boogie whilst coming to "Shut down" out events. (Or like decent people they tend to be, ask us to turn the rig down )

 

[Braandlin]

And best thing about this is that it would populate open more.

Right there is the issue.

You are ASSUMING that ...
a) there is a problem
b) the answer is to FORCE more people have to play the game the way YOU want them to in open.
c) you make claims about empathy, but clearly dont have any yourself for people who don't agree with you play style.

Hint...
a) there isn't
b) it isn't

 

[Braandlin]

I would support this only if you take it a small step further: simply separate the solo game completely from the multiplayer game.
This would free the solo game from the awful suffocating multiplayer shackles and balancing nonsense.
The FDev solo team could then start to develop:
- an off line mode,
- allow for modding,
- add npc crew mechanics,
- add npc wing mechanics,
- add an awesome solo story campaign
etc. etc. etc.

Only then Elite Dangerous would be able to become the glorious spacesim it should be.
As long as the game is held captive by multiplayer shenanigans it will never become what it deserves to be.

AND...
This would be good for multiplayer too.

So basically you are advocating that anyone that plays in solo or a private group right now should be excluded from community goals, PowerPlay and the BGS completely?
How is that remotely a solution (to a problem that doesn't exist)?

 

[Robert Maynard]

How is that remotely a solution (to a problem that doesn't exist)?

The "problem" in this case is that, while Frontier added an offline solo mode to the Kickstarter pitch about halfway through, offline mode was cancelled before release - much to the chagrin of some players (with consequential fallout aimed at Frontier, resulting in refunds in some cases).

It ignores the face that the three online game modes (with single shared galaxy state and mode mobility) pre-dated the addition of offline solo mode to the pitch and that every single player either backed or bought the game with these features either as part of the stated game design or part of the released game.

 

[Duc_Mallard]

Meh, carebears

 

[Robert Maynard]

Meh, carebears

Roughly translated as "Hey, it's a game with optional PvP and no-one who does not want to engage in it is required to - by design".

.... no wonder the game has attracted a significant number of players who don't enjoy PvP. It's almost as if Frontier designed it to appeal to as wide an audience as possible....