Make Characters Gamemode Choice Permanent!!!
- Thread starter Sunleader
- Start date
- Status
I'd actually like to see stats on how many players are actively switching between Open/Solo. I bet there's really not that many.
The only real "answer" I can see (to a problem that I don't entirely believe exists) would be to inject some sort of incentive for Open players - but of course this changes the balance of the game. An idea I had was to either;
a) Give some extra credits (max... 5%?, on a sliding scale) for trades made where there is lots of player interdiction activity. Market prices should take number of local (player) interdictions into account. This concentrates the PVP where the PVP happens, if you see what I mean. Traders make more money on dangerous routes, so more traders willing to risk PVP (in theory) use the routes, and more pirates use these routes thus forcing the "danger money" bonus up.
I feel that this is actually a good idea regardless of trying to fix this issue - dangerous routes = more risk and should = more reward.
Problems: Market prices are shared between Open/Solo, so manipulating market prices directly using number of attempted interdictions makes the prices go up in Solo mode too. Like I've said before, I don't think there IS a problem here, and that in all honesty the OP's issue of people bouncing from Solo/Open for tactical benefit is a red herring problem - that it simply does not exist (or at least not to the level that it will affect gameplay in any meaningful way).
b) Rather than applying the bonus to market prices, maybe apply a similar bonus to missions, particularly trade missions. More local interdictions = higher mission rewards. This can more easily be separated from Solo (again, not something I think is necessarily a good thing) to provide a "bonus" which is more in context than the previous "blanket bonus for Open play" suggested.
but either way, I don't really think there is too much to be concerned about here, although FD could well show us statistically if there is actually a core of players who swap over consistently (but proving that it is tactical gameplay could be problematic).
The only real "answer" I can see (to a problem that I don't entirely believe exists) would be to inject some sort of incentive for Open players - but of course this changes the balance of the game. An idea I had was to either;
a) Give some extra credits (max... 5%?, on a sliding scale) for trades made where there is lots of player interdiction activity. Market prices should take number of local (player) interdictions into account. This concentrates the PVP where the PVP happens, if you see what I mean. Traders make more money on dangerous routes, so more traders willing to risk PVP (in theory) use the routes, and more pirates use these routes thus forcing the "danger money" bonus up.
I feel that this is actually a good idea regardless of trying to fix this issue - dangerous routes = more risk and should = more reward.
Problems: Market prices are shared between Open/Solo, so manipulating market prices directly using number of attempted interdictions makes the prices go up in Solo mode too. Like I've said before, I don't think there IS a problem here, and that in all honesty the OP's issue of people bouncing from Solo/Open for tactical benefit is a red herring problem - that it simply does not exist (or at least not to the level that it will affect gameplay in any meaningful way).
b) Rather than applying the bonus to market prices, maybe apply a similar bonus to missions, particularly trade missions. More local interdictions = higher mission rewards. This can more easily be separated from Solo (again, not something I think is necessarily a good thing) to provide a "bonus" which is more in context than the previous "blanket bonus for Open play" suggested.
but either way, I don't really think there is too much to be concerned about here, although FD could well show us statistically if there is actually a core of players who swap over consistently (but proving that it is tactical gameplay could be problematic).
There will be more and more till this os fixed.
It doesn't need fixing, and I don't need you telling me how I should play.
How is your opinion, in any way, more valid than the decisions of the professional game developers?
Or maybe because you didn't check it out before you bought?
I did my research before I bought into the kickstarter.
Sorry that I sound so harsh.
Last edited:
Nope, leave things as they are. I play both, it's my choice, it's not affecting anybody else.
I mostly play solo because that's what the original is/was to me and I also don't want to suffer the gameplay styles of some users whilst I'm building up. I still want to be able to bring that character into open though and that doesn't affect the play style of anybody else.
I mostly play solo because that's what the original is/was to me and I also don't want to suffer the gameplay styles of some users whilst I'm building up. I still want to be able to bring that character into open though and that doesn't affect the play style of anybody else.
Here's an arguement against the OP.
I moved house just before release. I wasn't able to play at all for the first few days as we were knee deep in boxes. When I finally got to play, we still had no ISP set up, so I thought no problem, i'll just tether my mobile. I still have an unlimited tethering contract, and I was able to play open through my tether just fine in my old flat.
Except, the mobile reception at my new flat was far far worse... Open play was impossible and even solo mode was patchy with frequent droopouts. Still, i stuck with it and made some decent progress with rare trading in my Kickstarter Cobra during the limited windows of opportunity that I get to play. Meanwhile, my ISP took a full month after my "go live date" to actually get any kind of fixed line broadband into my house.
I would have loved to have been able to play open during that time. I don't care for pvp, but i've never experienced it outside of a combat zone - and it's fair play there tbh. I prefer to be able to interact and chat with other traders going about their business, and it's always been fun and polite. I've never been griefed and i've never been pirated, but if that does happen I can't say i'll mind especially. What i don't want is to have to ditch a month's progress to be able to join in the multiplayer game now that i'm finally able to get online. It's nothing to do with risk and reward - meeting another player in open space is still not a frequent occurance, and I don't think that the credits i've earned during solo play have come any easier than the ones i'm earning now.
So to the OP, there are all sorts of perfectly reasonable motivations for players to switch between playmodes. Putting restrictions onto this is not a good idea and will probably drive players out of Open play more than encouraging them in.
I moved house just before release. I wasn't able to play at all for the first few days as we were knee deep in boxes. When I finally got to play, we still had no ISP set up, so I thought no problem, i'll just tether my mobile. I still have an unlimited tethering contract, and I was able to play open through my tether just fine in my old flat.
Except, the mobile reception at my new flat was far far worse... Open play was impossible and even solo mode was patchy with frequent droopouts. Still, i stuck with it and made some decent progress with rare trading in my Kickstarter Cobra during the limited windows of opportunity that I get to play. Meanwhile, my ISP took a full month after my "go live date" to actually get any kind of fixed line broadband into my house.
I would have loved to have been able to play open during that time. I don't care for pvp, but i've never experienced it outside of a combat zone - and it's fair play there tbh. I prefer to be able to interact and chat with other traders going about their business, and it's always been fun and polite. I've never been griefed and i've never been pirated, but if that does happen I can't say i'll mind especially. What i don't want is to have to ditch a month's progress to be able to join in the multiplayer game now that i'm finally able to get online. It's nothing to do with risk and reward - meeting another player in open space is still not a frequent occurance, and I don't think that the credits i've earned during solo play have come any easier than the ones i'm earning now.
So to the OP, there are all sorts of perfectly reasonable motivations for players to switch between playmodes. Putting restrictions onto this is not a good idea and will probably drive players out of Open play more than encouraging them in.
Utterly stupid idea and these constant attempts to force people into open play is really feeling like campaigning, if not bullying. ED has got the balance between solo, groups, and open play spot on. Stop trying to force people to play the way YOU want them to play when it's entirely down to the paying customer to choose as and when.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
No, thanks very much for asking.
The existence of solo, private groups and open - and the ability to switch between them at will - has been part of the stated game design since the beginning of the Kickstarter (see below, emphasis mine) over two years ago and these features exist in the released game to provide players with freedom of choice. That you see these game features as a problem to be overcome is clear - as to Frontier making any changes now - I would not hold my breath.
Elite: Dangerous Kickstarter FAQ said:
nop, i checked it out a bit, and when i saw the big flashy ''sandbox multiplayer'' i thought they knew what is intended with it.
it's ok, it was worth the first day, quite an amazing experience. i would lie if i would tell it wasn't, but at the end of the second day it started to go downstairs..what really bugs me is that the whole point of E: D is not keeping you in the game with some sort of dynamic, le sandbox experience, because of a montly fee, but make you buy a new expansion when it comes out, because that's what will change the game, and because you pay once. who knows what i'm going to read about this new expansion when it hits the E-shelves ? they used the sandbox card right at start when it was a bit early to call this game like that. what's coming up next ?
Last edited:
Umm... It is a sandbox, and it is multiplayer. Trying to force players into open play doesn't make it any more or less of either of those things.
read more from this thread, you'll get to the point. maybe you mistook this thread with the 50% credit bonus one.
or you can keep swimming in your ''trying to force players'' sauce. enjoy
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Yup - the point of the thread is to attempt to restrict the choice of players who currently have the option to select which play-mode to play in on a session by session basis - simply because some players are not happy that the feature has been included in a game which has already released.
this suggestion will have the opposite to the desired effect, instead of open play becoming more populated preventing people from being able to freely switch modes will mean even less people in open and no possible way to join that mode of play once the choice has been make.
this also penalizes people who don't have much time to play, if you can only spare a few hours on a Sunday afternoon during your first play session you will be free to chose any mode you like, come back the next week after maybe 2 hours total game time and you will be forced, after a very short time to select the mode you will then be locked into.
private groups will suffer, some people like a bit of PvP every now and again but enjoy the PvE group as a relaxing alternative. your proposal would mean anyone who wants to play in a private group AND open play would not be able to do so. anyone who joins open would never be able to join a group and play with friends when they are available as they could no longer join a private group, the option would not be there.
in short this suggestion would mean a much larger percentage of people will join solo and stay there.
i can guess what the response to this will be, that you can (once available) start a second cmdr to chose a different mode, but why should someone who has in excess of 100 hours of play time under their belt be forced to start from scratch? how is that possibly fair?
the simple answer is that its not fair, far from it. for this reason i don't ever see FD enforcing this kind of change.
this also penalizes people who don't have much time to play, if you can only spare a few hours on a Sunday afternoon during your first play session you will be free to chose any mode you like, come back the next week after maybe 2 hours total game time and you will be forced, after a very short time to select the mode you will then be locked into.
private groups will suffer, some people like a bit of PvP every now and again but enjoy the PvE group as a relaxing alternative. your proposal would mean anyone who wants to play in a private group AND open play would not be able to do so. anyone who joins open would never be able to join a group and play with friends when they are available as they could no longer join a private group, the option would not be there.
in short this suggestion would mean a much larger percentage of people will join solo and stay there.
i can guess what the response to this will be, that you can (once available) start a second cmdr to chose a different mode, but why should someone who has in excess of 100 hours of play time under their belt be forced to start from scratch? how is that possibly fair?
the simple answer is that its not fair, far from it. for this reason i don't ever see FD enforcing this kind of change.
well if people get the option to transfer assets for a limited time, or be able to transfer assets using a paid service afterwards it would look better
Or just, you know, don't fix what's not broken!
Reading this thread (and similar threads) and pondering. Solo and Open are game mechanics that provide a choice to a player.
What is the motive of trying to dictate which mode other players play. What difference does it make if players jump between open and solo? Why would anyone care where other players play?
What is the motive of trying to dictate which mode other players play. What difference does it make if players jump between open and solo? Why would anyone care where other players play?
read more from this thread, you'll get to the point.
- Status