The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Ozric]

I guess they were right, it seems you can never leave.

The topic of open vs solo vs groups continues to be a popular discussion. Rather than see new threads being created and closed when duplicate topics alreadys exist, we have chosen to combine these into one easily affordable single paym...thread!

Please remember this is a discussion forum and people are allowed to state their opinions or ideas, just because you do not share that point of view does not make it wrong.

Any threads made on this subject elsewhere on the forums will be closed and redirected here.

Important rules for this thread​

To quote the all knowing Yaffle the forum rules apply as usual in this thread, but we'd like to highlight some specific points:

• Stay polite and on topic. Baiting, insulting or swearing will not be tolerated. Repeated infractions will result in losing the ability to post in this thread. Baiting includes dead horse references, use of the words "easy mode" or "carebear", accusations of griefing, and picture spam.
• Please do not indulge in pejorative comments about players from any of the platforms on which the game has been, or will be (or even might be), released.
• Remember how hard it is to read emotion on the Internet.
• If you feel a post violates the forum rules, click "report" and do not reply.

 

[Ettanin]

Proposal to rename this thread "Hotel California: Open, Groups and Solo"

 

[Sylveria]

The Official Hotel California thread!

<3

 

[nemolomen]

LOL...

 

[Ozric]

Proposal to rename this thread "Hotel California: Open, Groups and Solo"

Alas I can only offer some Pink Champagne on Ice.

 

[Sylveria]

Now we just need a flag for reported threads to recommend to this one.

 

[Brrokk]

It's like finding a blank sheet of paper when you have a dozen crayons.

Well, I'll say this. My hat is off to FD for a brilliantly innovative modal instancing design which uses the cost advantages of P2P to provide a game which appeals to many types of players. Solo play is available. PvP play is possible. Cooperative PvE play is possible. When I say "possible" I just mean that the players who want those things have to understand the game options and get organized. I think this versatility accounts for the game's success to date.

Block is a useful addition to mode selection. I have to admit that this is where things look a bit clunky, because of the theoretical possibility that one person's block could have knock-on effects for third parties wanting to instance together. I think block could be used a lot less (just covering cases of abusive comms or harassment) if FD would provide an Open-PvE mode.

I think there's room for a dedicated PvP feature and I'd support the idea of PowerPlay having Open-only elements.

I think the way the BGS reflects activities carried out in all modes works well.

Although we keep having immense threads, I don't think there are equally big problems. It's all working pretty well really.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I guess they were right, it seems you can never leave.

The topic of open vs solo vs groups continues to be a popular discussion. Rather than see new threads being created and closed when duplicate topics alreadys exist, we have chosen to combine these into one easily affordable single paym...thread!

Please remember this is a discussion forum and people are allowed to state their opinions or ideas, just because you do not share that point of view does not make it wrong.

Any threads made on this subject elsewhere on the forums will be closed and redirected here.

Important rules for this thread​

To quote the all knowing Yaffle the forum rules apply as usual in this thread, but we'd like to highlight some specific points:

• Stay polite and topic. Baiting, insulting or swearing will not be tolerated. Repeated infractions will result in losing the ability to post in this thread. Baiting includes dead horse references, use of the words "easy mode" or "carebear", accusations of griefing, and picture spam.
• Please do not indulge in pejorative comments about players from any of the platforms on which the game has been, or will be (or even might be), released.
• Remember how hard it is to read emotion on the Internet.
• If you feel a post violates the forum rules, click "report" and do not reply.

All of those caveats have left me speechless...

 

[Sylveria]

Fhw

All of those caveats have left me speechless..

They've learned from many years of experience.

As have most of us who've participated in Hotel California over the years.

 

[zikolach]

So what about changing interdiction mechanic to make low/med/high security systems more dangerous or safe? Can CM maybe forward this question to game designer(s) in one of the future streams.

Spoiler

If I've plotted a course over 3 jumps to grab stuff from a station, and I've got 4 pirates chasing me, why not have the game run an RNG check to see how they'll be spread out over my trip vs just dogpiling them onto me from the second I get into the mission target system all the way to 0.5s from a station? I'm saying the system could be better, not that it's hard. It's not hard. It's needlessly irritating, when it could be a much more immersive and believable system.

As an idea - if it only was possible (as part of a game mechanics) to join some others interdiction to drop all together once interdiction finished. I can imagine a couple of pirates trying to chase me at the same time - one starts interdiction and a couple of seconds later the second one joins (which increases the difficulty to evade for me). So the more stacked missions - the less chance potentially to evade.
But in high security system if there are police ships nearby in SC, they could also try joining the interdiction to be in place before crime is committed. So I can see ships joining interdiction and decide maybe it is safer to submit e.g. if there is 1 pirate and 2 police.

UPD: that could be imo better for wing gameplay than current drop on others wake signal mechanic - which seems to be a bit as immersion breaking hack.

Not sure if im getting this right, but that's exactly what's happening if you stack multiple missions.
There is a long line of pirates tailing you in Supercruise.

No.

The idea is that next pirate joins to the current interdiction and the process is getting harder for the person trying to evade - like more distractions, less predictable moves of escape vector etc. The more pirates joins - the more difficult. If you submit/loose - all joined drop simultaneously, if you evade - all suffer effects of your evasion.

Then the difference between high/med/low security systems - the higher security the higher chance system security force ships will notice criminals interdiction and join it to investigate or defend the target. Or punish the target if it transports illegal stuff or has wanted status.

There could be even more changes in mechanic - so everyone who "joined" interdiction has slightly different game - it can contribute towards or against evading - like 2 escape vectors one has to choose. E.g. to help traders counteract single pirate as well as the other way around.

 

[Sylveria]

Just put a damned PvP/PvE toggle on the game already for each CMDR to decide for themselves what sort of experience they want.

PvE toggle makes the CMDR shadow-blocked to those flagged for PvP and visible to everyone else. Then there's nothing extra to program, it would be using existing game mechanics with a nice simple UI toggle and puts each group together in Open.

Put a cool down on it of 30 mins so people can't abuse the feature.

Want both? Great, feel free to choose for yourself.

 

[zikolach]

PvE toggle makes the CMDR shadow-blocked to those flagged for PvP and visible to everyone else. Then there's nothing extra to program, it would be using existing game mechanics with a nice simple UI toggle and puts each group together in Open.

Can you please elaborate a bit more how it would work? Or add a link to another thread to your message if possible

 

[Darrack]

Can i?

Can i?

Surely i can finally get a full house?

O7

 

[Bigmaec]

I have the urge to write an open letter.
Open only letter, obviously.
But I fear I get ganked then

 

[Sylveria]

It's been discussed many times in the past, but ok.

When you block another player, you won't see them and they don't see you.

As to how the co-op features...

Add in a "Player is flagged PvE" tag, and relative players will simply fire thru or fly thru each other but still affect NPCs as normal. Boom, no more "griefing" arguments. Winged members will get a message that X player has left the Wing flagged for PvE and have the option to do so, or a timer that gives them a choice to do the same within X amount of time.

"Pad blocking" isn't really something to worry about too much with existing station timers and even NPCs do this on occasion (they're still subject to the same timers) so sure, you could use reducto ad absurdum to argue that but it's something everyone deals with.

IMO, there's really no "problem" that can't be resolved with a bit of programming here and there.

The "problem" isn't going away, folks. So let's start discussing solutions instead.

Or we can spend another 8+ years rehashing the same old tired arguments. Critique without offering alternative is worthless.

 

[Sylveria]

Alternative suggestion to PvP/PvE toggle (for Open) could also be removed maximum limitations to the amount of people in a group and give more granular toggle features when creating the group for the experience.

Toggle for PvP/PvE would effectively work the same as proposed, players would not be able to ram or damage other players.

 

[EdzUp]

Can you please elaborate a bit more how it would work? Or add a link to another thread to your message if possible

PvP toggle on you would be matched with other PvP players but will never see PvE players.

 

[zikolach]

Just a bunch of raw ideas...

What if players (and NPC) had an option to "surrender" by shutting down ship (thrusters and/or powerplant) and avoid/prevent (or make much more difficult) ship destruction?

Would it help to prevent griefing? Would be a legitimate gameplay mechanic and if yes - in which scenario?

First scenario - 2 players start to fight each other. One of them is low on hull and decide either to attempt to high wake or shut his ship down. In latter case the win/kill could be immediately counted towards the other ship. The condition to count it as a fight is opening fire from both sides.

Another scenario - one player interdicts another. The other (trader) looses/submits and immediately disables his ship (and therefore surrenders). The attacker may attempt to hack target or steal cargo from the disabled ship. An activation of disabled ship could take 1-2 minutes and an attempt would be visible/audible (similar to start of FSD charging).

Would it force gankers/griefers to play more pirate-like style?
Could be there a punishment similar (or equivalent) to rebuy in these scenarios for players exploiting this mechanic?

E.g. downloading personal effects from the disabled ship computer to sell on black market or use instead of own to identify itself as someone else. The player having its personal effects compromised would have to pay to clean it as soon as he can to avoid getting bounties and fines issued to him.

Should it be still a way to destroy disabled ship? If yes, why and how?

What if hull would be much more resistant against damage and the normal way to destroy other ships would be destruction of the modules. E.g. it could be new civilian armor type which sacrifice ship maneuverability, but having much more hit points.

In addition power plant destruction (as currently is) may be blown up, but shutting it down would lead to inability to target the module and therefore damage it (at least as effectively).

Hitting the drives could lead to uncontrollable flight instead of current stopping of the acceleration. E.g. one could disable thrusters as a countermeasure to missiles targeting the thrusters (breaking missile target lock).

 

[Rubbernuke]

So the thread was sent to the knackers yard section

 

[Rubbernuke]

Just a bunch of raw ideas...

What if players (and NPC) had an option to "surrender" by shutting down ship (thrusters and/or powerplant) and avoid/prevent (or make much more difficult) ship destruction?

Would it help to prevent griefing? Would be a legitimate gameplay mechanic and if yes - in which scenario?

First scenario - 2 players start to fight each other. One of them is low on hull and decide either to attempt to high wake or shut his ship down. In latter case the win/kill could be immediately counted towards the other ship. The condition to count it as a fight is opening fire from both sides.

Another scenario - one player interdicts another. The other (trader) looses/submits and immediately disables his ship (and therefore surrenders). The attacker may attempt to hack target or steal cargo from the disabled ship. An activation of disabled ship could take 1-2 minutes and an attempt would be visible/audible (similar to start of FSD charging).

Would it force gankers/griefers to play more pirate-like style?
Could be there a punishment similar (or equivalent) to rebuy in these scenarios for players exploiting this mechanic?

E.g. downloading personal effects from the disabled ship computer to sell on black market or use instead of own to identify itself as someone else. The player having its personal effects compromised would have to pay to clean it as soon as he can to avoid getting bounties and fines issued to him.

Should it be still a way to destroy disabled ship? If yes, why and how?

What if hull would be much more resistant against damage and the normal way to destroy other ships would be destruction of the modules. E.g. it could be new civilian armor type which sacrifice ship maneuverability, but having much more hit points.

In addition power plant destruction (as currently is) may be blown up, but shutting it down would lead to inability to target the module and therefore damage it (at least as effectively).

Hitting the drives could lead to uncontrollable flight instead of current stopping of the acceleration. E.g. one could disable thrusters as a countermeasure to missiles targeting the thrusters (breaking missile target lock).

For me one of the attractions of Open is that its free of abstractions and rules, in that if you arrive in one piece (or several) depends on a whole gamut of things you can do and change before you attempt anything. PvP 'wins' are simply you doing what you want to do, and adapting until you achieve that.

In reality only making ED credit poor, and making criminals lives harder* so high tech equipment is harder to come by will you balance out ganking (since criminality without purpose- i.e. the booms, would be counter productive). So pirates, BGS players etc would be good 'bad' because they are making money and sometimes want people to live, while gankerrs ganking all day will simply wither.

*criminals need gameplay as well, something ED does very poorly.