Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jordan Cobalt]

I find it funny when people forget the forums have a looooong memory;



Here you are, suggesting people get mode locked under certain circumstances that suit you, but you don't like the idea when it suits someone else?

Indeed, the forums have a long memory, but the problem is, people have very short ones.

Here's a quote from 2 pages ago, read the very first line.

I don't really have a problem with it, it won't effect me, I only play open. I also doubt it will effect most of the pvp population since they mostly play in open anyway. The only ones it will effect are those who dip their toes in open pvp between solo/group sessions. Aka the trader who gets bored and decides to pirate for a little, or the pvp player who has to recoup his losses so he trades in solo.

My main issue with it is that it punishes some professions over others. If Mr peaceful trader can switch at will and play his way, than it seems hypocritical to not let mr evil pirate do so as well.

I don't dislike the idea at all, I'm more indifferent to it than anything. It won't effect me negatively at all, it might even help dissuade the casual pirate to leave the trader targets for me. The only part of it i find distasteful is the uneven nature of it. So lock CGs and PP to open and I'm all for it. That way everyone suffers equally

 

[Roybe]

The analogy is about consent, not about the relative severity of the actions the consent is given for. Unless you are suggesting that consent should only matter in real life? Perhaps a re-read would be in order, after you've calmed down a bit.

Yep...I reread it...still sounds sketchy..what do short skirts have to do with consent...and why would I do anything with someone wearing short skirts without consent? Sounds like an excuse that a lot of people use for a sexual crime. And yes...there really is a huge difference between games and real life...particularly when making those kinds of comparisons!

To your point at hand...if you play in Open you are consenting to playing PVP...whether you accept that or not is not a PVP players issue. I will give people the benefit of the doubt once...and asked the devs to provide a warning to people that PVP could and will occur within Open...and that really is more than needs to be done.

If you want to avoid non-consensual PVP...feel free...we all know how to do that.

 

[Khelder]

Yep...I reread it...still sounds sketchy..what do short skirts have to do with consent...and why would I do anything with someone wearing short skirts without consent? Sounds like an excuse that a lot of people use for a sexual crime. And yes...there really is a huge difference between games and real life...particularly when making those kinds of comparisons!

To your point at hand...if you play in Open you are consenting to playing PVP...whether you accept that or not is not a PVP players issue. I will give people the benefit of the doubt once...and asked the devs to provide a warning to people that PVP could and will occur within Open...and that really is more than needs to be done.

If you want to avoid non-consensual PVP...feel free...we all know how to do that.

Sexual crime analogies are probably not a great path to go down. So many people have really strong views on the matter and trying to have a logical conversation along those lines can lead to a lot of aggression (yes - from past experience).

How about a different analogy? I don't know if this one will help more...

John decides to play professional football (full contact - not soccer). He accepts that he is playing a full contact sport with a bunch of other really strong and aggressive players. He accepts that there is a chance that he may be injured during the course of his games. That is the game he plays. That's the way it is.

John, however, does not accept the risk of some manic running onto the field and stabbing as many players as he can and then running off. Yes, that risk is potentially there. But John feels that that is not what he means by "consent to injury risk" when he signed up to play football.

So...

I believe the original thought around PvP interaction in Open was supposed to be "rare and meaningful". I assume many, myself included, play Open on that basis. They accept the risk of interaction and it is part of the thrill. They don't necessarily consent to playing the victim to some mindless pilot who is going from defenseless trader to defenseless trader, destroying ships for kicks. And to add to the insult, faces grossly disproportionate consequences for those actions.

 

[why fi at all]

In Open Play, you would expect a significant amount of PvP encounters. If you want to be a pirate you should expect to be able to go from star system to star system and find traders to plunder from. If you want to be a bounty hunter or mercenary, you should expect to find pirates to destroy and collect the bounties on their head. But this isn't really the case. Why is that? I'll tell you exactly why, it's because of solo play.

Because of solo play, players can play by themselves without having to worry about other players trying to steal their stuff, and why wouldn't they? Although some may enjoy the rush of trying to evade a pirate, most will not find the risk to be worth it and in the end the vast majority of traders will play solo mode. Even those who enjoy PvP will resort to solo when trading. There is absolutely no reason to not play in solo if you're a trader.

Without traders the rock, paper, scissors of Elite Dangerous PvP completely breaks down. Without traders there are no pirates and without pirates there are no bounty hunters. Because of this, I don't think PvP in Elite Dangerous is ever going to be what it could be.

With that said, I'm sure there are plenty of you out there who say, "Who cares? I don't want to PvP." I'm not suggesting we remove solo mode. Obviously that is something that cannot be undone at this point. There may be other solutions, however.

One possible solution is to give traders incentive to play in open play. This could be created a number of different ways.

- Increase the profits that traders make in open play making it just as profitable or maybe even more profitable than solo play.

- Increase the NPC pirates in solo mode to more closely match what traders might experience in open play.

- Increase NPC security in open play to make it more difficult for pirates to steal from traders.

Another way of doing it would be to change the way solo play and open play work. Perhaps after a certain patch, players would have to choose between three different modes which their CMDR would be permanently bound to. These would be the modes:

- Open Play PvP, which would work exactly the same as current open play.

- Open Play PvE, which would be like open play except real players would not be able to attack each other.

- Solo Play, which would work exactly the same as the current solo play.

If you wanted to play on multiple modes, you would have to create separate CMDRs. You could have one CMDR in each mode, and anything and everything those CMDRs earn would only be accessible to themselves. So you COULD NOT earn 200 million credits on one CMDR and spend it with another CMDR.

In my opinion, the easiest and best solution is to just give traders enough incentive to play in open play mode. I think this would solve the problem. But other solutions may work as well.

What do you guys think?

here we go again.

a new idea that nobody ever thought of before.

punish the people not playing in open.

and throw on them the perma ban from any mode except the one you chose your first time around so that if you feel you made the wrong choice you need to delete your current commander to change it.

invalidate the other modes deeply enough and people will flock to open and beg to be someones target that is unable to defend its self.

ignore the fact that there are many reasons to play solo.

i am not going to try to count how many times this idea has been presented.

this thread will never end.

and if i don't stop trying to catch up on 10 o 20+ pages every time i have time to play the game, i'll just have to resign myself to being a forum warrior and uninstall the game to keep it from wasting space on my 1 terabyte drive that i use ONLY for game installs.
like morrowind.
and LOTRO.
and star citizen.
and kerbal space program.
and entropia.
and . . .

i do think that the only reason that this thread is so persistent and never dies is the statement "no plans for that at this time."
that is said in reference to changing the three modes.
that easily is interpreted into the statement "be loud and belligerent enough and we will give in".
a clear and final NO needs to be said.

as for what i want, [and i know it won't happen but i'll say it anyway] is that the only PVP should be in one of the private groups where during the formation of the group there will be a check box choice made as to PVP or PVE.
and the current open mode will be pure PVE, except for those with a currently valid letter of marque.
i'm still working on how the letter of marque would work. my last version had flaws had i not seen untill pointed out to me by a respected source.


you know if a child throws a tantrum to get ice cream for dinner, and you tell them NO.
then they get more extreme in their tantrum and you say NO.
and then they start to get even more extreme and you tell them "well ok, but only this time and never again".
what that child learns is that if it's not getting what it wants the reason is only because it's tantrums have not yet gotten extreme enough.

and then they grow to adults with this learned behavior still intact.

they become psycho killers in MMO's and end up getting their way.
look at eve and it seems that star citizen may already be headed down that road.

just punish those people NOT playing open and they will give in and be glad to come be our targets.
yea a WHOLE new idea.

 

[why fi at all]

The reward for those who want to play in open is being able to play with others. No other incentives should be needed.

i agree with this.
how is it that open is PVP with PVE being the ugly stepchild that needs to form a private group?
it could have easily been PVE in open with PVP needing to create a private group.

was it a flip of a coin?
i suspect not.

there is some reason, and i would like to know that reasoning.

 

[why fi at all]

They want players to band together and fight them because they want to force non PVPers to PVP and play their game while content in the knowledge that they would have the complete upper hand.

i am throwing a tantrum and killing you because you wont play my way and let me kill you.

Why is it that the issue is the playstyle that is dominant in Open, yet everyone wants to blame Solo for the problems and reward Open for driving everyone away from it than offer treats to try to sucker people back in?

ahh good i was able to rep you +1 again.

 

[Khelder]

how is it that open is PVP with PVE being the ugly stepchild that needs to form a private group?
it could have easily been PVE in open with PVP needing to create a private group.

was it a flip of a coin?
i suspect not.

there is some reason, and i would like to know that reasoning.

Just my thoughts here, but isn't Open technically more... you know... realistic? I can understand why people want PvE. But from a realism point of view, it doesn't really make sense to have a certain set of pilots who are magically off limits to attacks from their own class. Ultimately, it would be awesome if you couldn't tell the difference between NPCs and PCs (more than just hollow indicators - I mean by their actions).

I think the problem particularly comes from PvPers who aren't interested in fitting into the realism (roleplay) as such and are just looking for things to shoot.

 

[Sylveria]

Just my thoughts here, but isn't Open technically more... you know... realistic? I can understand why people want PvE. But from a realism point of view, it doesn't really make sense to have a certain set of pilots who are magically off limits to attacks from their own class. Ultimately, it would be awesome if you couldn't tell the difference between NPCs and PCs (more than just hollow indicators - I mean by their actions).

I think the problem particularly comes from PvPers who aren't interested in fitting into the realism (roleplay) as such and are just looking for things to shoot.

*inserts broken record response about "offline mode" not being offered from release, therefore Open players think it should all be about PvP for everyone*

 

[Khelder]

*inserts broken record response about "offline mode" not being offered from release, therefore Open players think it should all be about PvP for everyone*

I don't get it.

 

[Mouse]

Yep...I reread it...still sounds sketchy..what do short skirts have to do with consent...and why would I do anything with someone wearing short skirts without consent? Sounds like an excuse that a lot of people use for a sexual crime. And yes...there really is a huge difference between games and real life...particularly when making those kinds of comparisons!

To your point at hand...if you play in Open you are consenting to playing PVP...whether you accept that or not is not a PVP players issue. I will give people the benefit of the doubt once...and asked the devs to provide a warning to people that PVP could and will occur within Open...and that really is more than needs to be done.

If you want to avoid non-consensual PVP...feel free...we all know how to do that.

Well you hit on her main point... it is an excuse.. whether in the real world or in ED.. that behavior to victimize others always has an excuse... and "They signed consent when they clicked on open" is a big excuse..

New Players coming into the game see Solo, Groups, or Open.. the only one to say they can play with others (not friends) is Open. So they go in and get pounced, overpowered, and destroyed by a jerk in a python. Notice I did not say a PVPer.. those who want PVP don't engage in this type of activity because they are looking for a challenge. The person who did this wanted dominance and power over others. The new player never consented to this, they were looking to play with others, maybe PVP some, yet the jerk will crow "consent" and claim they had the right to do this because you played open.


Those that keep crowing consent in open are the same people who are scratching their heads and wondering why people are leaving open for Private groups, they are also against a Open PVE mode, some want all modes but Open shut down and others rewards to bring people to open.

 

[Roybe]

Sexual crime analogies are probably not a great path to go down. So many people have really strong views on the matter and trying to have a logical conversation along those lines can lead to a lot of aggression (yes - from past experience).


How about a different analogy? I don't know if this one will help more...

John decides to play professional football (full contact - not soccer). He accepts that he is playing a full contact sport with a bunch of other really strong and aggressive players. He accepts that there is a chance that he may be injured during the course of his games. That is the game he plays. That's the way it is.

John, however, does not accept the risk of some manic running onto the field and stabbing as many players as he can and then running off. Yes, that risk is potentially there. But John feels that that is not what he means by "consent to injury risk" when he signed up to play football.

So...

I believe the original thought around PvP interaction in Open was supposed to be "rare and meaningful". I assume many, myself included, play Open on that basis. They accept the risk of interaction and it is part of the thrill. They don't necessarily consent to playing the victim to some mindless pilot who is going from defenseless trader to defenseless trader, destroying ships for kicks. And to add to the insult, faces grossly disproportionate consequences for those actions.

I agree...which was why I was pointing out that the analogy was sketchy...


And you are still arguing about crime in a world where crime is not desired...i.e. real life. In this game crime IS desired by the devs...and they are balancing the justice system so that crime has a punishment...but not enough of one to deter crime from occurring. People are either not comfortable with crime happening against them...or they find that crime occurs to much for their taste...in either case...there are ways created by the devs to avoid the crime completely. Whether the devs are going to change the system to increase or decrease the penalties for crime...cannot be determined...since it has been adjusted...it would appear that they might have found a place where they are happy with the punishments provided. That doesn't mean players are, but their opinions do not matter in this case. Only the devs opinions do. The devs will point to Private and tell folks...there is plenty of ways to play without player on player crime...have at it.

People complain about High, Low, and Anarchy systems not being what they advertise...<shrug> says you. The devs define what these things are and how security works within them. Not us. We can let them know we aren't happy about it...but in the end..if they do not change things....or let us know they are working on creating differences...we can only assume that the game is working as intended and its up to us to play or not play.


As far as PVP..it is rare, as it is completely avoidable...and certainly has meaning. For the players that PK, all they do is incur in game costs to kill others...so do those that that lose ships, pay insurance, and/or wind up in starter ships. I am not sure what can be meant to be more meaningful than that.

Again, I point out, ignore all the player rants that the game is broken, or somehow not made correctly. They are all wrong...the game is made so that people can play it anywhere, on any platform, and can equally affect the galaxy around them. Bad things are expected to happen in one mode...particularly since the devs have given every player weapons that can be used against other players. The devs have provided places where this is completely avoidable. If you cannot find fun in the places where bad things cannot occur...and cannot find fun in places where it can occur...then you have no other options...play something else.

 

[Sylveria]

I don't get it.

It's been said many, many, many times. "Offline" mode, which was promised from the kickstarter never manifested itself- therefore "Solo" mode was the compromise.

Now people complain that "Solo" mode is the cause of Open's problems- when in all actuality Open was never meant to be "the" mode, but you'll constantly see much propaganda to the contrary.

Note- that I had interpreted your response regarding "But from a realism point of view, it doesn't really make sense to have a certain set of pilots who are magically off limits to attacks from their own class" as being a reference to protection of PvE players but after re-reading it I think you're actually focusing on a different point. Apologies if I misinterpreted, but I see much allusion in these threads to "how little it makes sense" that there's a mode switch available to players and more "let's just toss out all the modes and blend it into Open mode instead!" which at this point would be stupid for FD to do, regardless of how people think it might serve their business model.

 

[Khelder]

It's been said many, many, many times. "Offline" mode, which was promised from the kickstarter never manifested itself- therefore "Solo" mode was the compromise.

Now people complain that "Solo" mode is the cause of Open's problems- when in all actuality Open was never meant to be "the" mode, but you'll constantly see much propaganda to the contrary.

Ah. I'm not sure how Solo mode would be the cause of problems in Open. Yes, I know people are saying that - it just doesn't seem like a really valid argument.

My comment was more about what makes sense to me from a realism aspect. An Open/PvE mode doesn't really make sense to me from that perspective. Not saying I'm against it - just that it seems weird. Open makes sense. Solo is essentially the same. In Solo, there are no commanders who for some reason you aren't allowed to hurt. There's just NPCs and you.

 

[Roybe]

It's been said many, many, many times. "Offline" mode, which was promised from the kickstarter never manifested itself- therefore "Solo" mode was the compromise.

Now people complain that "Solo" mode is the cause of Open's problems- when in all actuality Open was never meant to be "the" mode, but you'll constantly see much propaganda to the contrary.

Note- that I had interpreted your response regarding "But from a realism point of view, it doesn't really make sense to have a certain set of pilots who are magically off limits to attacks from their own class" as being a reference to protection of PvE players but after re-reading it I think you're actually focusing on a different point. Apologies if I misinterpreted, but I see much allusion in these threads to "how little it makes sense" that there's a mode switch available to players and more "let's just toss out all the modes and blend it into Open mode instead!" which at this point would be stupid for FD to do, regardless of how people think it might serve their business model.

The modes were not a compromise...they were designed from the beginning to be what they are...Offline was a change in direction from the original plan...and could not be added properly to the game. Check the original KS page...

 

[Asp Explorer]

Open makes sense. Solo is essentially the same. In Solo, there are no commanders who for some reason you aren't allowed to hurt. There's just NPCs and you.

It can be exactly the same in Open. Just you, NPC's, and a rubbish internet connection will give you the Solo experience no matter what mode you log in to.

 

[Khelder]

but their opinions do not matter in this case. Only the devs opinions do.

FD is a business. They provide a product to customers. Most intelligent businesses listen (very carefully) to the opinions of their customers. They may decide to take a path different to certain opinions. But saying that the customer's opinion does not matter is likely very far from the truth.

For the players that PK, all they do is incur in game costs to kill others...so do those that that lose ships, pay insurance, and/or wind up in starter ships. I am not sure what can be meant to be more meaningful than that.

Someone who attacks another player risks their insurance costs and gets a fine. It is possible (and probably quite common) for unsuspecting traders and explorers to lose hours, days, or even months worth of effort in seconds. That isn't just in-game cost. That is real life cost. That doesn't seem overly proportionate to me.

Again, I point out, ignore all the player rants that the game is broken, or somehow not made correctly. They are all wrong...the game is made so that people can play it anywhere, on any platform, and can equally affect the galaxy around them. Bad things are expected to happen in one mode...particularly since the devs have given every player weapons that can be used against other players. The devs have provided places where this is completely avoidable. If you cannot find fun in the places where bad things cannot not occur...and cannot find fun in places where it can occur...then you have no other options...play something else.

I don't see why you can't have fun playing the game, but also provide feedback on what you see are problems or how the game could be improved. I've posted before that product developers (FD in this case) need feedback from their customers to gauge their success. Yes, people can always play something else. Probably some of them should. Some people have a real interest in the game and want to contribute.

- - - Updated - - -

It can be exactly the same in Open. Just you, NPC's, and a rubbish internet connection will give you the Solo experience no matter what mode you log in to.

Well... yes. But that's probably a whole different problem. :/

 

[Khelder]

Only flaw in your considerations is the epic cacophony of opinions which seems pretty "balanced" on almost every contrary issue. Good luck with listen to your customers then.

That's not a flaw. That's a challenge.

There's almost always going to be plenty of differing views. It is up to a business (or organisation/political party/whatever) to assess the information it can gather and potentially use that to help steer in certain directions. Just because there are lots of opinions does not mean that people's opinions don't matter. But, alas, you're unlikely to keep everyone happy.

 

[Khelder]

Often and in the long run it's better to stay true to your original vision. It's similar to colors: If you want to use all colors you get just black instead of a painting.

That may be true. But it still allows room for tweaking.

Let's take a bank for example. This bank has a team of very experienced professionals who make investment goals for the company. In general, the bank isn't going to take advice from people on the street in this aspect. But that does not stop them from keeping an eye on public sentiment. Someone might put their hand up one day and say "Company X is getting a lot of good press and goodwill at the moment. We don't invest in them now, but it's not too far outside of our strategy. If we were to invest in this company, we could use the goodwill to our advantage."

Perhaps FD has a very clear strategy of providing three different modes of play (yes - with equal effect on BGS). But someday someone might put their hand up in a meeting and say, "There's been this ridiculous thread in the forum for a while now about the modes. Obviously, we're not going to change our gameplan entirely. But perhaps we could take some of their concerns on board and tweak things around a little? It's not too far outside of our strategy and we can use the goodwill to our advantage."

Just tossing some thoughts out there. Don't get too angry people. Please.

 

[Mouse]

Someone who attacks another player risks their insurance costs and gets a fine. It is possible (and probably quite common) for unsuspecting traders and explorers to lose hours, days, or even months worth of effort in seconds. That isn't just in-game cost. That is real life cost. That doesn't seem overly proportionate to me.

It is amazing how many people don't get this and think that loss to someone is "funny" and quipped that it is "Just a game."

 

[Taimaru]

That may be true. But it still allows room for tweaking.

Locking modes is not what I would call tweaking, it is changing the game from something many, from the days of the kickstarter onwards, partly based their purchasing decision on, to something completely different that may have resulted in a non-purchase or even a failed kickstarter.

It would be like buying a computer chess game only to find a year later a forced patch update turns it into a game of checkers.

Many would either stop playing and maybe ask for a refund or stick to solo/group mode. The open mode galaxy would therefore be as empty as you perceive it to be now. At least with mode switching, there is the possibility of solo/group players coming into open when they feel like a change of pace.

A tweak I would like to see which would make many more happy than locking modes is to make NPCs carry round more valuable cargo making them worthwhile to pirate. Whilst it wouldn't suit the "person after player victim" or the pirate who only wants to target players, it would improve all modes.