It has been explained time and item again that Mode switching ,
1. is a Critical aspect of the game
2. Removing it would cause an even bigger evacuation from Open
3. Isn't the problem with open at all.
- Status
It has been explained time and item again that Mode switching ,
1. is a Critical aspect of the game
2. Removing it would cause an even bigger evacuation from Open
3. Isn't the problem with open at all.
If lave has an issue, go to a different star system for a while... I think there might be a few in the game, no? There's a reason the game has BILLIONS of star systems, and THOUSANDS of populated systems with missions, trading, and combat. You could play this game for months in open, and never see another player. You don't need to switch back and forth in order to avoid dangerous player on player interaction.
Personally? I enjoy the interaction. And if you know how, it is painfully easy to avoid a player if you don't want the contact. PVP combat is 100% voluntary in open.
The way I read 'better servers' I understand him to mean better matchmaking. There is no complaint about the modes here. The complaint is lack of PvP players, and or the troubles the wing mechanic sometimes has. Either of those reasons makes it pretty childish to lash out like that. He not only stole some game play, RP from the pilot in the Asp, but from those in his wing as well. Like a tea kettle he just had to let go.
I will pass on discussing the matchmaking system, I rarely wing up (I've not had any trouble when I do), and it is off topic here. I will bring up the subject of the lack of willing PvP players. That there may be a lack shouldn't be blamed on the modes. It should be blamed on way some players conduct themselves. That possible conduct is exactly what the modes are for. We have natural selection going on here. As predicted long ago, open's population is being left to the PvP'ers, and there is just not enough of them to support their wishes.
For a start, where have you been? I've lost count of how many times in the 3 threads open advocates have asked for ED to be 1 game mode with bigger instance values. I can link the 2 other threads for you to read if you like - or use the links in my Sig to pull up the post counts for all 3, you can filter who posted what by them.
Second, Solo and Group advocates are not arguing anything, we just want to keep the game that was advertised and sold to us.
Something Frontier have constantly stated they stand by, we are just here to remind open only advocates that is the case.
Thirdly, you have no idea why people mode hop. I dare say some folks do it for your listed reason, in fact I have no doubt about it.
But that is not why I mode hop, it is not why my friends mode hop - over half of the status quo advocates have explained in detail within the 3 threads why they mode hop and none of your reason comes up.
I think mode hoppers can be broken down into two categories.
Those that just enjoy the game for what is and us its facilities as they see fit - legitimately and without complaint.
And those that imagine they can get a fraction more progress/imaginary space money by switching - even though they claim to prefer open.
Also legitimate but slightly ironic seeing as it often seems to be these people that complain about switching in the first place and are therefore the cause of their own "problem".
Those that just enjoy the game for what is and us its facilities as they see fit - legitimately and without complaint.
And those that imagine they can get a fraction more progress/imaginary space money by switching - even though they claim to prefer open.
Also legitimate but slightly ironic seeing as it often seems to be these people that complain about switching in the first place and are therefore the cause of their own "problem".
Last edited:
Don't think I like that. There are free to play games that give you two character slots, and some even give you five, for the cost of filling a registration form. FD can manage two slots for every £40 purchase, methinks...
I used to watch documentaries on prisons and through my own work experiences have listened to real life criminals;
It's AMAZING how the wrong doer is never at fault.
Society,
Siblings,
Parents,
Partner (married or otherwise - any gender)
Economy,
Drugs,
Alcohol,
ADHD (or other similar condition),
The Government,
The Police (frame up, or the police responded "too fast"),
The Victim (in cases where there is one)
The Tax System,
Europe (This is more an excused used in the UK),
Immigrants,
Foreigners,
Aliens,
Circumstances (a vague one I've heard used),
Bad Luck,
Bad Timing,
This is not the whole list - just the bit I can be bothered to type.
But it amazes me how the criminal is never on the list.
Last edited:
Yup you are right.. by going to open they are willingly allowing PVP to happen to the whether they know it or not, but just because you CAN do something does not mean you should. Cause and effect. Cause being the griefers, effect being people leaving open. Yet everyone wants to blame the effect when they need to focus on the cause.
The CAUSE is the issue with Open and why people go elsewhere.
If Frontier remove mode switching then they would have to also have to give out refunds (full or partial) to people who bought the game knowing it had a feature (mode switching) that allowed them to have infinite freedom to blaze their own trail and play the game they way they want to.
The solution is simple:-
Frontier bring out another game called Elite: Deadly which is identical in code to Elite: Dangerous except for the networking code. It would be an Open Mode only game (so no mode switching) and it would use servers instead of P2P networking so instancing would no longer be an issue, and epic battles can take place. It would also use a different instance of the Galaxy so it can only be affected by those playing it.
It would have to be funded by subscription to pay for the servers, however, people who have already bought Elite: Dangerous could get the first few months free.
Elite: Dangerous would still exist for those people who like it the way it is and those who don't like mode switching could play Elite: Deadly
.
The solution is simple:-
Frontier bring out another game called Elite: Deadly which is identical in code to Elite: Dangerous except for the networking code. It would be an Open Mode only game (so no mode switching) and it would use servers instead of P2P networking so instancing would no longer be an issue, and epic battles can take place. It would also use a different instance of the Galaxy so it can only be affected by those playing it.
It would have to be funded by subscription to pay for the servers, however, people who have already bought Elite: Dangerous could get the first few months free.
Elite: Dangerous would still exist for those people who like it the way it is and those who don't like mode switching could play Elite: Deadly
.If Frontier remove mode switching then they would have to also have to give out refunds (full or partial) to people who bought the game knowing it had a feature (mode switching) that allowed them to have infinite freedom to blaze their own trail and play the game they way they want to.
The solution is simple:-
Frontier bring out another game called Elite: Deadly which is identical in code to Elite: Dangerous except for the networking code. It would be an Open Mode only game (so no mode switching) and it would use servers instead of P2P networking so instancing would no longer be an issue, and epic battles can take place. It would also use a different instance of the Galaxy so it can only be affected by those playing it.
It would have to be funded by subscription to pay for the servers, however, people who have already bought Elite: Dangerous could get the first few months free.
Elite: Dangerous would still exist for those people who like it the way it is and those who don't like mode switching could play Elite: Deadly
You may have something there. But, the players who choose to move over to the 'Deadly' version should have to pay for the dedicated servers up front. Before FD invests in servers let's just see what kind of interest there is. Right now it is dubious that there are enough 'open-only' players to sustain the investment.
Open in a wing is rarely risky because instancing problems usually prevent you from meeting other full wings. This is why most pvp is gang-banging and people complain about killers and griefers.
It has nothing to do with the players?
If Frontier remove mode switching then they would have to also have to give out refunds (full or partial) to people who bought the game knowing it had a feature (mode switching) that allowed them to have infinite freedom to blaze their own trail and play the game they way they want to.
The solution is simple:-
Frontier bring out another game called Elite: Deadly which is identical in code to Elite: Dangerous except for the networking code. It would be an Open Mode only game (so no mode switching) and it would use servers instead of P2P networking so instancing would no longer be an issue, and epic battles can take place. It would also use a different instance of the Galaxy so it can only be affected by those playing it.
It would have to be funded by subscription to pay for the servers, however, people who have already bought Elite: Dangerous could get the first few months free.
Elite: Dangerous would still exist for those people who like it the way it is and those who don't like mode switching could play Elite: Deadly
But it's not just server costs. It's would be a lot more complicated than just running multiple copies of the BGS and PP. There are community goals which are injected manually by the Devs, GALNET articles etc. all of which would have to be different for the two versions and which would presumably grow farther and farther apart as time goes on (different outcomes to CGs etc).
If Frontier remove mode switching then they would have to also have to give out refunds (full or partial) to people who bought the game knowing it had a feature (mode switching) that allowed them to have infinite freedom to blaze their own trail and play the game they way they want to.
The solution is simple:-
Frontier bring out another game called Elite: Deadly which is identical in code to Elite: Dangerous except for the networking code. It would be an Open Mode only game (so no mode switching) and it would use servers instead of P2P networking so instancing would no longer be an issue, and epic battles can take place. It would also use a different instance of the Galaxy so it can only be affected by those playing it.
It would have to be funded by subscription to pay for the servers, however, people who have already bought Elite: Dangerous could get the first few months free.
Elite: Dangerous would still exist for those people who like it the way it is and those who don't like mode switching could play Elite: Deadly
And again you completly dismiss the fundemental issue with Open. Say you get FD to do it.. how long till many players moves back to Elite Dangerous and leave Elite Deadly struggling for subscription fees?
- - - Updated - - -
10000+ rep.... I just noticed your signature and greatly approve it
Anyone who fights in a wing in open on a fairly regular basis will know what I mean. We literally have to add our enemies to our friendlists just to know they are in the same system as us, most of the time. As a result, most occurrences between players are mismatched. Statistically this means unfairness...players personalities vary, but are secondary to this issue that needs fixing. Open is broken.
Here's an idea - don't fly around in gank squads.
Fly solo if you are tracking someone on your friends list, so it is a fair fight, or in a pair and no more.
Also, if you see the person is on their own, have it set so only 1 person in your wing engages unless they get support then have your support fly in.
Lots of ways not to have gank squads pushing people out of open
That sounds like an issue between any mixture of two things. The Wings mechanics may have issues. The Matchmakng code may have issues. How does the ability to choose what people you play with, the modes, have to do with your issues?
It'll never be fair.
There will always be some level of imbalance to contend with.
That's the point. It is also not what is wrong with the Open-Mode that makes people shy to play or stay with it.
PvE and PvP are both multiplayer sides of a single coin. They are not opposites or in opposition to each other. Their counterpart is called "Solo". Both PvE and PvP are centered around the same concept of player to player interactions with a slight, but not conflicting, variations. Both of which, in a game claiming to have billions of star systems, should be able to coexist to various degrees and not completely overlap in every instance.
Any determined and genuine PvPer will dislike Ganking and Griefing just as much as any PvE or Solo player would because it is ultimately counter-productive. PvPers depend on opportunities to interact with other players and taking actions that drive other players away from playing, ultimately reduces the opportunities to PvP. It's destructive behavior and eventually leads to the end of the game for everyone, not just the player receiving the short end of the stick and getting grief'd.
There will always be some level of imbalance to contend with.
That's the point. It is also not what is wrong with the Open-Mode that makes people shy to play or stay with it.
PvE and PvP are both multiplayer sides of a single coin. They are not opposites or in opposition to each other. Their counterpart is called "Solo". Both PvE and PvP are centered around the same concept of player to player interactions with a slight, but not conflicting, variations. Both of which, in a game claiming to have billions of star systems, should be able to coexist to various degrees and not completely overlap in every instance.
Any determined and genuine PvPer will dislike Ganking and Griefing just as much as any PvE or Solo player would because it is ultimately counter-productive. PvPers depend on opportunities to interact with other players and taking actions that drive other players away from playing, ultimately reduces the opportunities to PvP. It's destructive behavior and eventually leads to the end of the game for everyone, not just the player receiving the short end of the stick and getting grief'd.
Very well said, but i disagree with the end of the game statement. It may make open a ghostland full of reavers per say, but won't end the game. Solo and Groups will still be going strong
- Status