Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jockey79]

Could be kinda interesting if there was a bonus to playing in open, and it actually would be quite interesting if it was tied into how long you've been playing in open rewarding you, but only up to a certain point, say maybe:

2+ hours in open: 5% bonus
rising by 1% every hour you are in open after that until 15%?
if you log into solo/group resets
and of course doesn't increase if you just are sitting idle at a station or such, but only actually flying about outside no fire zones?

Well if we are going to throw arbitrary reasons for a bonus, then speaking as someone who is left handed I should get a disability bonus as my HOTAS is for right handed people.
And I have 3 children, so 10% bonus per child as they distract me from playing. 10% for each time my wife calls me away from the computer.
3 Dogs, so another 30% there for every time I have to walk them or open the back door to let them out.

So I'm up to an 80% bonus.

Oh and the special bonus for every time we get called cowards on the forums - so that's a 300% bonus on top.

 

[Mouse]

Could be kinda interesting if there was a bonus to playing in open, and it actually would be quite interesting if it was tied into how long you've been playing in open rewarding you, but only up to a certain point, say maybe:

2+ hours in open: 5% bonus
rising by 1% every hour you are in open after that until 15%?
if you log into solo/group resets
and of course doesn't increase if you just are sitting idle at a station or such, but only actually flying about outside no fire zones?

There has yet to be a valid reason for a bonus in open

 

[Asp Explorer]

There has yet to be a valid reason for a bonus in open

There will never be one

 

[Jockey79]

There will never be one

Won't stop people asking though.

 

[Faded Glory]

Good idea. And solo players should get a bonus because they have to face the danger alone, without having friends to back them up. Lets say 5% bonus, and raising?

And to keep the programming easy and not further devalue the economy, let's just cancel each bonus out and keep it as it is...

I only ever get interdicted by wings nowadays... I definitely think I need danger money.

 

[relayer]

Oh and the special bonus for every time we get called cowards on the forums - so that's a 300% bonus on top.

I like this idea! I propose that it be opened up using Cody's List. It could be like a Swear Jar.

- - - Updated - - -

I've been thinking - there's one condition under which I'd vote for an OpenPVP server:

If the AI was tweaked up to just this side of murderous/impossible. After all, challenge is the big selling point for PVP, yes?

Oh yeah, and you couldn't earn ships and cash to take into the main game.

Sound good?

 

[why fi at all]

Honestly, I can't imagine any system would want to incentivise that. If your reason for killing is -winning-, then your reward is -you won-. If your reason for killing is -it makes them cry-, then your reward should be to sit with the other berks on the naughty step. I, and I dare say I expect most people- wish not to give sweets to bullies.

excellent description.
short sweet and to the point without the verbage that i often throw in.

 

[why fi at all]

There will always be guys and girls that enjoy anarchy.

anarchy does not mean chaos.

 

[Asp Explorer]

anarchy does not mean chaos.

Exactly! Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

 

[why fi at all]

Lots of people say we should setup a PvP private group. It largely goes ignored. Why?

because it's not lots of people.
it's only lots of posts made over and over to look like lots of people.

 

[Morbad]

The player retention and longevity of every single PvP-based MMO ever released just called. They would like to have a word with you about how they have never ever been even a gnat's burp in comparison to the profit that PvE games make.

The most profitable games are mindless smartphone trash.

But expecting every other mode to hand over the background sim just so a few people can pew pew in it without any influence from outside is... unrealistic, at best.

Agreed. Also not the sort of PvP I would enjoy.

If I were of a mind, I could run a pretty amazing "PvP" game out in Elite, it just requires a lot of people willing to contribute and play by the rules, instead of by free-for-all.

My CMDR exercising his freedom of travel and action is what results in most PvP I experience.

Rules, beyond the rules of the game that form the natural laws of the virtual universe I'm playing in, are total anathema to plausible conflicts.

It's the difference between boxing and a street fight. One is a spectator sport pretending to violence, the latter is violence as a means to an end, a tool of profit, spite, or vengeance leveraged with no rules beyond the laws of physics...and far deeper as a result; simultaneously a vastly more exhilarating experience than any regulated bout, yet something one rightly fears to be drawn into because of the potential for, or even likelihood of, grievous (physiological and/or legal) consequences.

What many people fail to realize, including many of those clamoring for a more PvP oriented mode than Open, is how broad the motivations behind PvPers are. For me the possibility for violent confrontation with other CMDRs in ED, without any hard restrictions separating CMDRs from NPCs, is as fundamental to the verisimilitude of the experience as being able to move in three dimensions. At the same time I think attacking people just to attack people is pretty silly, and always have a pretense for any violence I engage in...not that I think anyone else should be forced into such standards.

Consent is good. Choice is good. I'm pro choice and pro consent and PRO CONSENTING PVP.

Requiring any more consent than clicking "Open" would remove any possibility for the sort of environment I'd want to play in.

It doesn't matter how much I may want to avoid a given encounter, or what I'm intent on doing in the game at any given time. For me to enjoy the game, other CMDRs have to be able to encounter me, have to be able to attack me, have to stand a chance, should they have the requisite skills and equipment, or simply catch me sufficiently off guard, to destroy my ship. It would be even better if my CMDR was at risk of dying, especially if they faced similar risks.

I may not enjoy being interdicted. I may not enjoy being attacked when I'm trying to trade, but I could not tolerate a game world that prevented these things simply because I was not consenting.

No one consents to negative experiences, no one consents to actual loss, but plausibility cannot exist without the potential for loss and negative experiences.

Lots of people say we should setup a PvP private group. It largely goes ignored. Why?

I'm a heavily PvP oriented player, but the overwhelming majority of my PvP encounters are incidental, unplanned, or unwanted.

I normally don't go out of my way to see out confrontations, and the majority of my interactions are not hostile, so what would a PvP group have to offer me? Sub-5% of the population and a similar lack of variety?

 

[Mouse]

The most profitable games are mindless smartphone trash.



Agreed. Also not the sort of PvP I would enjoy.



My CMDR exercising his freedom of travel and action is what results in most PvP I experience.

Rules, beyond the rules of the game that form the natural laws of the virtual universe I'm playing in, are total anathema to plausible conflicts.

It's the difference between boxing and a street fight. One is a spectator sport pretending to violence, the latter is violence as a means to an end, a tool of profit, spite, or vengeance leveraged with no rules beyond the laws of physics...and far deeper as a result; simultaneously a vastly more exhilarating experience than any regulated bout, yet something one rightly fears to be drawn into because of the potential for, or even likelihood of, grievous (physiological and/or legal) consequences.

What many people fail to realize, including many of those clamoring for a more PvP oriented mode than Open, is how broad the motivations behind PvPers are. For me the possibility for violent confrontation with other CMDRs in ED, without any hard restrictions separating CMDRs from NPCs, is as fundamental to the verisimilitude of the experience as being able to move in three dimensions. At the same time I think attacking people just to attack people is pretty silly, and always have a pretense for any violence I engage in...not that I think anyone else should be forced into such standards.



Requiring any more consent than clicking "Open" would remove any possibility for the sort of environment I'd want to play in.

It doesn't matter how much I may want to avoid a given encounter, or what I'm intent on doing in the game at any given time. For me to enjoy the game, other CMDRs have to be able to encounter me, have to be able to attack me, have to stand a chance, should they have the requisite skills and equipment, or simply catch me sufficiently off guard, to destroy my ship. It would be even better if my CMDR was at risk of dying, especially if they faced similar risks.

I may not enjoy being interdicted. I may not enjoy being attacked when I'm trying to trade, but I could not tolerate a game world that prevented these things simply because I was not consenting.

No one consents to negative experiences, no one consents to actual loss, but plausibility cannot exist without the potential for loss and negative experiences.



I'm a heavily PvP oriented player, but the overwhelming majority of my PvP encounters are incidental, unplanned, or unwanted.

I normally don't go out of my way to see out confrontations, and the majority of my interactions are not hostile, so what would a PvP group have to offer me? Sub-5% of the population and a similar lack of variety?

No one is trying to prevent you from having your pvp or the experiences you described, they are trying to put together a server so those that do NOT want that type of PVP can go to. It is not solo or group players that keep making these threads that get merged into the mega thread, it is proponents of Open who want to alter things to force people into open. We don't want to shut down or force you to change your play, we just don't' want it done to us.

 

[Morbad]

We don't want to shut down or force you to change your play, we just don't' want it done to us.

Which is what private groups like the one your are in are for.

I think the current modes are largely fine as is. The status quo is pretty good: those that cannot abide CMDRs behaving as they will can select or form an appropriately exclusive Group; those that cannot abide other players at all can stick to Solo; and those willing to encounter any CMDR, of any disposition, can play in Open.

The only thing I would change about the current play modes is implementing a delay when switching back to a mode one recently left.

 

[Dweezil_Moon]

I agree with Morbad. THis is the reason I played open until now : the *possibility* of a player-based danger. I barely got interdicted by players in all the months I've been playing mind you. The first one was a Vulture, I was in a Viper. I lost He or she seriously outgunned me and I very nearly escaped. THAT was fun.

Getting pounced in a T6 in less than 10 seconds without any ways to avoid being destroyed is not fun (I honestly can't fathom where the fun for whoever shot me was neither). And that's the *only* problem with open. Ganking is not playing. If your main goal is "let's make other players miserable without even trying to make it a challenge" then you are not actually playing Elite, you are playing "Sadist Simulator". It's a little bit like having bro's hold a deer and then shooting it point blank while shouting "look at me! I'm the king of the wurld!pass the beer!"
A solution I could see is to make such behaviour (repeatedly shooting players) highly criminal for whatever PP sphere of influence this happened in or the victims belonged to, and have wings of AI police units try to interrupt and destroy offenders as soon as they enter non-anarchy systems, and to deny landing permissions at all major ports. This way this style of "gameplay" (no matter what my opinion about it is) would still be possible, but the risk for the players would increase exponentially (and cheaters might be a tiny bit more obvious in the logs)

 

[Zelos1983]

No, its not - and you know it. Stop trolling me.

I always find people funny who think all others are trolls, because they have a different opinion then you ;-)

So please enlighten me:

"- make sure not to meet Pirate-/Griefer-/-PewPewPew-Kids, -clans or -traitors
- make sure not to have any disadvantages by cheaters"

which of your two conditions are not met in a well-chosen group?

 

[relayer]

A solution I could see is to make such behaviour (repeatedly shooting players) highly criminal for whatever PP sphere of influence this happened in or the victims belonged to, and have wings of AI police units try to interrupt and destroy offenders as soon as they enter non-anarchy systems, and to deny landing permissions at all major ports. This way this style of "gameplay" (no matter what my opinion about it is) would still be possible, but the risk for the players would increase exponentially (and cheaters might be a tiny bit more obvious in the logs)

This is the kind of statement a lot of us solo/group players have proposed before. Someone (maybe Asp) said that actions should have consequences. We don't want to restrict open; we've just asked that logically, actions should have consequences, particularly repeated PKs. I am for AI police presence boosted: it's ridiculous that killers and psychos are allowed to trounce around core/oldworld systems without being hunted down as a priority target.

I would still play mostly solo because I enjoy a meditative game (been a science, space and science-fiction buff for many years) and play in a style that's very laid back.

But I could see how the above suggestions could make a large difference for new players who get put-off by experiencing nasty things & seeing that there's no consequence for those actions. You'd probably lure a lot of people back into open too.

 

[Mouse]

Which is what private groups like the one your are in are for.

I think the current modes are largely fine as is. The status quo is pretty good: those that cannot abide CMDRs behaving as they will can select or form an appropriately exclusive Group; those that cannot abide other players at all can stick to Solo; and those willing to encounter any CMDR, of any disposition, can play in Open.

The only thing I would change about the current play modes is implementing a delay when switching back to a mode one recently left.

I agree, but the idea of a Open-PVE mode is a good one as well, mainly because then those who are searching for Interaction with other players without PVP do not have to search for a group like Mobius but instead can just log into the Mode.

How much of a delay are you talking about? I know people are against that mainly because say your playing in solo and some friends log in.. how long of a delay are we dealing with to switch and play with them. Most of the people I know play in Open, but also in solo and groups depending on what they feel like playing and their net connection at the time. A delay to them feels more like a penalty due to those who PVP but switch modes to save their own bacon. Why are they getting punished for bad PVPers?

 

[smiths121]

The current modes work well for my sort of game play. I want to meet people, adhoc team up, occasionally meet a hostile cmdr, and have challenges thrown at me by the game, al the time heading towards my next goal. I use open mode as my game mode, I think the Morbius group would work pretty much as well, just a smaller sample of players.

As examples, yesterday I initiated PvP combat for the first time since beta in a conflict zone. No Cmdrs died, bit of chat and we ended up on the same side in the conflict zone in a wing. Not every PvP encounter has to end in someone losing their ship. You can even gain new friends on your friends list. Even at Lugh, the wing on wing stuff I did was mostly sports event level abuse to each other with sporadic fighting, I think one ship was lost a side over a couple of systems - lot of fun sledging though! Open gives me the PvP options I want, there are flash points where I know there will PvP combat, but my home area is quiet with perhaps one or 2 "Hello Cmdr" interactions a week.

The bit where open and arguably the game falls down is the trader/pirate/bounty hunter player interaction. Running a Type-6 in open is not to everyone's taste, particularly at a flash point such as a community goal, and I think the other modes cater for this. I think NPC escorts will rebalance open if/when it arrives.

The cap on player bounties makes the risk/reward much harder for bounty hunters when deciding whether to interdict or not, let alone lack of tools to track or find wanted players. I would like to see better tools for the bounty hunter who wants to track player bounties. This is one area where the ability for the target to play in solo must be frustrating for those that choose the bounty hunter role.

Pirates gets themselves a bad name, rightly so, Bounty Hunters are scum in society - pirates are worst! At the end of the day, I have been pirated, its quite fun making the run/fight/negotiate decision under pressure, would not want it all the time though. I can see if one is pirated repeatedly in a trade ship on rare runs how the player ends up in solo mode.

I make a distinction between pirates and those out for jollies by just killing. The former, whilst I am not meant to "like" the player, I can at least rate them on their ability to generate their profit using threats without losing my ship, or take them on if I fancy it! The latter, well how do you discourage it (well I think it needs a bit more discouraging), without hurting the bounty hunter and pirate roles any further?

Sorry, I think I just "framed" open/solo in my own terms, I really do not have any answers as I have adapted my game style to playing in open. Killing for jollies works as a game style in open as well. I think if you look, you can find someone killing for jollies, rare runs and other flashpoints. I avoid these in a trading ship. Other game styles struggle in open, including the three classic roles. Getting these roles to interact better in Open, would move the debate on in my opinion.

Thanks
Simon

 

[xondk]

Good idea.

top.

To motivate people to play with other people? give people a reason to want to risk open? where they might get attacked by players and whatnot?
That's about it, there's no reason to give people any other advantage for anything else, play solo or group, if you are playing group you are playing with friends and enjoying yourself, if solo you are not worrying about others and enjoying yourself? does it really bother you that people that play open get a bonus for doing so? why? they earn more then you for doing the same? sure but they also participate in open and the risks that include?

It is just a thought

There has yet to be a valid reason for a bonus in open

It is a thought, I think could be interesting, it doesn't need to happen, it doesn't need to be done, but I think it could get more people into open, if they find it worth it, if they do not, then they can continue as is without worrying? there are a ton of people out there that probably have more money then you, so does 15% max really matter if you are enjoying the game? do you enjoy the game less when you know that others that play the game basically on a higher difficulty get a bonus for that?

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is a thought, I think could be interesting, it doesn't need to happen, it doesn't need to be done, but I think it could get more people into open, if they find it worth it, if they do not, then they can continue as is without worrying? there are a ton of people out there that probably have more money then you, so does 15% max really matter if you are enjoying the game? do you enjoy the game less when you know that others that play the game basically on a higher difficulty get a bonus for that?

Frontier are on record as holding the opinion that the three modes are equal and valid - that does not seem to support the idea that one mode should be singled out for more favourable rewards.