Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[The Wallet Inspector]

Not really, NPCs are not on the forums asking for more pew pew targets or buffs to their game play

I do miss the days they were after actually after loot though, before they all turned into murderous psychos.
You at least were able to pay your way out if an Elite Anaconda pulled over your Type 7. Now you just have to HW and hope you make it.

Oh so you admit then, you want to change the game based on forum politics and not because of valid gameplay concerns. As I thought. I cannot imagine the devs would take this seriously, especially when they realise the proposal is advocated by a grand total of 2 people (maybe 3 or 4, but I don't think that would make any difference). So i take it you have no problem with so called "non-consensual" attacks in the game?.

PS, nice "Wall of information" you have there

 

[Seonid]

Not really, NPCs are not on the forums asking for more pew pew targets or buffs to their game play

I do miss the days they were after actually after loot though, before they all turned into murderous psychos.
You at least were able to pay your way out if an Elite Anaconda pulled over your Type 7. Now you just have to HW and hope you make it.

In a decent geared ship I've had them make excuses and run, making comments like "Whoa there big guy, no harm on foul" or "Oops, you're not the one I am looking for, I was thinking about retiring anyway..." when I deployed hardpoints.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

In a decent geared ship I've had them make excuses and run, making comments like "Whoa there big guy, no harm on foul" or "Oops, you're not the one I am looking for, I was thinking about retiring anyway..." when I deployed hardpoints.

Would lol if a PC did this, then I would kill them (or leave them spinning, more fun imo, and less costly to them, as long as they can reboot)

 

[DarkWalker]

I'd sooner just play what FD puts in front of me. They're the designers. That's what I pay them for. If I wanted a game I designed, I'd design one. But I don't, so I haven't. FD are far more suitably qualified to provide enhancements and upgrades to the current game as time goes by as they understand it intrinsically. To the nth degree as they have the code and the variables.

Off-topic, but the main reason I tend to hate always-online games is because I'm very rarely satisfied with just what the devs put in front of me. My typical install of an Elder Scrolls game, for example, has over a hundred mods, of which at least a few I create or tweak myself, and even games without modding support I often find a way to tweak to my liking.

Game devs might be professionals. But, with very few exceptions, their ideas of what is fun or enjoyable don't match mine.

---

[Edit: The little blue arrow after the name in the quote will jump you to the full post the quote comes from]

In the theme I'm using, which I assume to be the default one, it's a little red arrow.

---

How is that going to prevent you being interdicted against your consent by an NPC who won't respond to your hails? Methinks the "problems" will continue...

Aaand one more person that didn't get that, for many of those seeking Solo and Group modes, or proposing an Open PvE mode, being interdicted by a NPC is often a completely different experience from being interdicted by a player...

Being interdicted by a NPC is not, and was never, an issue for me. But being interdicted by a player when I didn't explicit opt into that is something I will never accept.

---

There's no question that is it is, indeed, "working as intended". The different matchmaking modes, the ability to switch between them for each play session at will without loss of progress or any other penalty are exactly what FD originally intended.

Though other aspects of the original design don't seem to be working as intended.

More specifically, those that depend on how the players will react. After all, PvP was supposed to be "rare and meaningful", and meeting other players was supposed to be a pleasant surprise that would as often as not end with the players collaborating for a while or at least exchanging some pleasant conversation and parting ways amicably; I don't think this is working as intended, at least not outside Mobius, with all those reports of players that will simply silently jump away when they see someone else.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Aaand one more person that didn't get that, for many of those seeking Solo and Group modes, or proposing an Open PvE mode, being interdicted by a NPC is often a completely different experience from being interdicted by a player...

It is purely subjective. Nothing is different. I get interdicted, type a message, no response. Get attacked. Only real difference is, Players are a LOT better ( in my experience). So really, it is down to being uncomfortable with the difficulty of PvP (if a player is mean or abusive in chat then that IS against the terms, and they can be reported, but I have not once seen this raised as a concern, or encountered it myself). I have no problem with players escaping though, or "silently jumping away" as you put it. That is part of the game. One could argue that if they made NPC's as good and adaptive/obsessed as players, there would be nothing to complain about from anyone. But we may have to wait a few decades for that kind of ability to present itself. Anyone who is clicking on Open, as of this moment in the development of the game, ( and for over the last year), needs to be aware that they are opting in. You can claim otherwise, but you are. If you do not like it, then you do not have to opt in and you do not have to click on the mode. Feel free to debate it among yourselves, but over the last thousand posts, I have yet to hear a valid and convincing argument to the contrary Same old ground though eh?

To add, you say PVP was supposed to be rare and meaningful, it is. You said players were supposed to be pleasant, well in my experience they generally are! If they are not getting on with you, it may be down to your behavior (*not suggesting anything, just saying, relationships are complex, and people are not like NPC's, they cannot be expected to behave in a pre-programmed way).

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Can I ask you something? Why keep you throwing stuff at eachother's heads but won't say anything to an actual (honest) suggestion?

I feel ignored

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I still would like to know what all of you think of this idea:


Increased player reward:


It works like this: For example bounty, when a player kills another clean player he gets a special kind of bounty that can be paid off but does not expire nor does it decay. This special bounty is tremendously higher than when killing a NPC. For example: A player kills a clean trader, depending on the worth of the destructed ship, the killer gets a bounty equal to the rebuy cost (let's say 1 million credits). It doesn't have to be the rebuy cost, it also could be a flat amount or rank rependent, etc. this is just an example.

The player can now decide wheather to pay off this bounty (which is expensive over time) or to keep it. If kept, the bounty can still increase into very high heights which means that PvP will be encouraged.

The bounty should not only be visible in the system, but in the whole major faction (e.g. if a clean palyer was killed in the alliance territory, the player will be wanted in all the alliance systems.

In addition, when killed by a NPC or suicide, the bounty will remain or if some think that may be unfair, a part of the bounty is taken away (dependent on rank, rebuy costs, whatever ... feel free to add your suggestions).

A player, however, can theoretically claim all the bounty at once if the ship is expensive enough (so we prevent players from stacking bounties, hopping into a sidey and getting killed by a friend to give him/her credits and to get rid of the wanted status).

While the special, let's call it 'player bounty' is not paid off or claimed by another commander, NPCs will hunt the player just like in the case of having a normal bounty.


Please remember that this is a general suggestion and not the final uber solution of the problem, but the general idea should be clear and can be customized for balancing purposes.

Feel free to share your thoughts, suggestions and critique regarding my suggestion.

This is a good suggestion. Would rep but can't

 

[Robert Maynard]

Can I ask you something? Why keep you throwing stuff at eachother's heads but won't say anything to an actual (honest) suggestion?

I feel ignored

You're not ignored - there were a few comments in relation to your proposal for increased bounties being applied to players who destroy other players. Something very like this was discussed in the DDF as the "Pilots' Federation Bounties" in the Criminality topic.

At the moment, in my opinion (and has been said by others in this and other threads), the consequences for destroying player ships are tiny in comparison to the losses incurred by the targeted player (unless the target is in a low value ship with little or no cargo). A 6,000 Cr. bounty gained against a potential loss of in excess of 10M Cr. is a ridiculous disparity.

 

[DarkWalker]

It is purely subjective.

Enjoying something is always purely subjective. And, since it's a game we are talking about, enjoying it is the most important thing. So, the fact it's subjective doesn't change anything.

Subjective reasons are important, in many cases more important than objective ones. For example, why do you prefer specific colors over others? If we only went for objective reasons, clothes and cars wold mostly come in variations of bright orange and bright pink, which are the most visible colors (it's why prison uniforms are orange). People go for other colors out of subjective reasons, and it's so prevalent that you rarely see those kinds of bright colors around.

So really, it is down to being uncomfortable with the difficulty of PvP (if a player is mean or abusive in chat then that IS against the terms, and they can be reported, but I have not once seen this raised as a concern, or encountered it myself).

Nope. Difficulty, for many, doesn't play a part at all. Rather, it's about a living, breathing, thinking person deciding that the way to have fun is to force others into engaging them, with no regard at all about whether they are ruining the game for the other player. What I think about this kind of player can't be put into print without risking my posting privileges, which is why I will refuse to ever play with someone that thinks like that even when we would otherwise be helping each other.

I have no problem with players escaping though, or "silently jumping away" as you put it.

Neither do I, but I believe the devs do. I doubt the kind of gameplay that exists on Open, where players will often avoid everyone else due to fearing the interaction, is what they had in mind.

One could argue that if they made NPC's as good and adaptive/obsessed as players, there would be nothing to complain about from anyone. But we may have to wait a few decades for that kind of ability to present itself.

Not really. The devs have explicitly said in the past that they could, if they so desired, make the NPCs as hard as they wanted, up to the point where even the best players would fall before them. The difficulty of NPCs is a variable they explicitly tune in such a way to (hopefully) make the game as enjoyable as possible for as many players as they can.

Heck, I'm not a particularly good player, and I'm still above the average enough that I never care about how difficult a game is, because any game that could drive me away due to difficulty (at least in the genres I enjoy playing) would have already driven most other players away and be a flop.

Anyone who is clicking on Open, as of this moment in the development of the game, ( and for over the last year), needs to be aware that they are opting in.

They might be opting into the mode, but it doesn't mean that they enjoy everything the mode has to offer or that they want to opt into all its elements. As the existence and size of the Mobius group, as well as the pool atop this thread (even if closed early), can attest, many would prefer a game mode that offered everything Open offers except for the PvP.

It is why, until an official Open PvE mode is offered, I will consider the kind of PvP in Open to be non-consensual; there are clearly players being attracted into Open that don't actually want to engage in PvP. Which is something I see as very detrimental for the game, as someone being forced into anything against their will, PvP included, is much more likely to leave the game early. And yeah, I do see anyone that is opening himself for PvP he doesn't actually want in order to get something else as being forced into PvP.

 

[DarkWalker]

Can I ask you something? Why keep you throwing stuff at eachother's heads but won't say anything to an actual (honest) suggestion?

I feel ignored

Your idea is good, but not exactly new; most, if not all, of its elements were proposed before, and I believe it's even close to the consensus (or whatever consensus can be obtained from the players). Something similar was even proposed by Frontier itself, I believe about two years ago, but they never got to implementing it.

I'm still waiting for Frontier to either start implementing the things they themselves proposed in the DDR docs or to, at least, give some indication of what they still want to implement and what they are dropping.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Nope. Difficulty, for many, doesn't play a part at all. Rather, it's about a living, breathing, thinking person deciding that the way to have fun is to force others into engaging them, with no regard at all about whether they are ruining the game for the other player. What I think about this kind of player can't be put into print without risking my posting privileges, which is why I will refuse to ever play with someone that thinks like that even when we would otherwise be helping each other.

You are free not to play, you can just play in a private group. So in my opinion, FD gave you a way to avoid that if you want. Again though, you admit the end effect is the same on you after interdiction, you just feel a bit bothered because someone else got some enjoyment out of the game at the same time. As I previously stated you are free to cite this reason, I just don't think it is a very meaningful. Also I notice alt of people say things like "What I think about this kind of player can't be put into print without risking my posting privileges". Again, you just betray this to be a personal philosophical position you have about legitimate gamers. I would only advise you don;t play a game where others can "force" you to engage with them. But there is that word "forced" again. Feel free to debate this, but I see no further purpose in trying to clarify to people how they are not "forced" to do anything in this game. It is the equivalent to joining a football team, and then claiming every tackle was a violation of your consent. You could always just, not play the game if it is so distressing an experience.

 

[Jockey79]

You are free not to play, you can just play in a private group. So in my opinion, FD gave you a way to avoid that if you want. Again though, you admit the end effect is the same on you after interdiction, you just feel a bit bothered because someone else got some enjoyment out of the game at the same time. As I previously stated you are free to cite this reason, I just don't think it is a very meaningful. Also I notice alt of people say things like "What I think about this kind of player can't be put into print without risking my posting privileges". Again, you just betray this to be a personal philosophical position you have about legitimate gamers. I would only advise you don;t play a game where others can "force" you to engage with them. But there is that word "forced" again. Feel free to debate this, but I see no further purpose in trying to clarify to people how they are not "forced" to do anything in this game. It is the equivalent to joining a football team, and then claiming every tackle was a violation of your consent. You could always just, not play the game if it is so distressing an experience.

You still didn't read my information wall did you - as we were told (before the game came out) that we can choose who we play with when we want to. The quote is in the wall of information I've quoted twice since you've been in the thread and linked in my sig which I have told you about over 5 times since the 7th of September.

So wanting to play PvE with like minded players, is a valid choice supported by the Devs. - but it is not catered for very well, hence some people asking for a real PvE mode adding to the menu.

Also, as you've opened the door for this - as there are more people playing the game than there are on the forums moaning to change it's current setup, you should consider the highlighted points in your quote apply to you more so than anyone else.

The freedom of choice and equal rewards were the case since the start, and as you say - don't like it, don't play it.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

I still would like to know what all of you think of this idea:


Increased player reward:


It works like this: For example bounty, when a player kills another clean player he gets a special kind of bounty that can be paid off but does not expire nor does it decay. This special bounty is tremendously higher than when killing a NPC. For example: A player kills a clean trader, depending on the worth of the destructed ship, the killer gets a bounty equal to the rebuy cost (let's say 1 million credits). It doesn't have to be the rebuy cost, it also could be a flat amount or rank rependent, etc. this is just an example.

The player can now decide wheather to pay off this bounty (which is expensive over time) or to keep it. If kept, the bounty can still increase into very high heights which means that PvP will be encouraged.

The bounty should not only be visible in the system, but in the whole major faction (e.g. if a clean palyer was killed in the alliance territory, the player will be wanted in all the alliance systems.

In addition, when killed by a NPC or suicide, the bounty will remain or if some think that may be unfair, a part of the bounty is taken away (dependent on rank, rebuy costs, whatever ... feel free to add your suggestions).

A player, however, can theoretically claim all the bounty at once if the ship is expensive enough (so we prevent players from stacking bounties, hopping into a sidey and getting killed by a friend to give him/her credits and to get rid of the wanted status).

While the special, let's call it 'player bounty' is not paid off or claimed by another commander, NPCs will hunt the player just like in the case of having a normal bounty.


Please remember that this is a general suggestion and not the final uber solution of the problem, but the general idea should be clear and can be customized for balancing purposes.

Feel free to share your thoughts, suggestions and critique regarding my suggestion.

Since noone else said anything, I'll give my opinion. Tying the bounty to rebuy cost lowers the incentive to go after small ships. A pesky small fast ship like the Cobra won't be worth the effort of attacking in a wing of slow ships. You're also putting a cap on the bounty, which is a stupid idea.

Although 1 mill was just an example, it's too high, way too high. If you make a bounty high noone will pay it, in which case you can't make the game too hard with a bounty. There's also enough accidental murders in the game to make it hell on newbies, or unlucky players. With pp there's also legit reasons to kill or attack a player. Punishing players severely in thoses cases is pretty harsh.

all that said, it's not a bad way to do things, probably better than we have now.

 

[ianw]

It is the equivalent to joining a football team, and then claiming every tackle was a violation of your consent.

That's not a great analogy as it leave room for interpretation. Obviously you consent to a legitimate tackle. But not one that takes the player's legs rather than the ball through clumsiness, carelessness, recklessness or even deliberate violence such as that perpetrated by that guy whose surname rhymes with Bean.

In other words you consent as a footballer to play with other fair playing professionals not some clumsy incompetent oaf who can't control their limbs or worse.

 

[Jockey79]

That's not a great analogy as it leave room for interpretation. Obviously you consent to a legitimate tackle. But not one that takes the player's legs rather than the ball through clumsiness, carelessness, recklessness or even deliberate violence such as that perpetrated by that guy whose surname rhymes with Bean.

And some of these are just exploiting gravity to cause grief on other players.

Also, don't forget - Football is played by private clubs (Group Mode).
If I turned up in my kit to a world cup final and expected to play - I'd be laughed at, no matter how much I scream at them it's "Open Mode"

 

[ianw]

And some of these are just exploiting gravity to cause grief on other players.

Also, don't forget - Football is played by private clubs (Group Mode).
If I turned up in my kit to a world cup final and expected to play - I'd be laughed at, no matter how much I scream at them it's "Open Mode"

Actually it just occurred to there are some similarities with the game.

I can remember lot's of players from my youth playing days that deliberately went the for the player kicked them up in the air then claimed all innocent face style "I played the ball ref!".

And quite a few of them were on my side.

Of course this was the 70s when it was considered obligatory to kick any "flash git twinkle toes" off the ball - it was practically taught in school!

 

[Cody]

Football is a gentleman's game played by thugs, whereas rugby is a thug's game played by gentlemen!

 

[DarkWalker]

You are free not to play, you can just play in a private group. So in my opinion, FD gave you a way to avoid that if you want.

Not exactly. There is no official option for those that want to meet random players without the PvP. Private groups were never meant for that. Add a mode where I can meet random players in a way where PvP can't happen and I'm peachy.
(Well, mostly. What I really wanted is an offline mode.)

Again though, you admit the end effect is the same on you after interdiction, you just feel a bit bothered because someone else got some enjoyment out of the game at the same time.

Nope. The issue is not the other player getting enjoyment over it; the whole reason for a game existing is to provide enjoyment, after all, preferably to all parties taking part in it. When a way for getting the consent of every player taking part is added, everything is awesome.

The issue is that the other player is forcing his playstyle over others, with absolutely no regard for whether the other player want it or not. The other player going ahead with his action even though he knows that he might be ruining some other player's day, in some cases even intentionally attempting to do that.

Also I notice alt of people say things like "What I think about this kind of player can't be put into print without risking my posting privileges". Again, you just betray this to be a personal philosophical position you have about legitimate gamers.

I don't see those players as legitimate gamers; rather, I see them as people without empathy, who are out there to snatch whatever fun they can even if in the process they ruin the game for everyone else, people I absolutely want to have no contact with at all in game. When I mention that saying what I really think about them would get me forum infractions, I fully mean that; I had to edit this post a few times to get it into a shape that I could share.

For me to consider someone truly a gamer, then that person must be aiming to not only have fun, but to help everyone else playing the game have fun. In other words, someone that is fully invested in making the game fulfill its role in bringing joy. Anything less and, while I might consider the person a player, I will never consider him a gamer.

I would only advise you don;t play a game where others can "force" you to engage with them.

I don't. If the game has PvE elements I will only play it if I completely and utterly opt out of every and all PvP activity in it (or, in the case of a game that I'm playing for the PvP, if I can avoid everything PvE without it resulting in any disadvantage).

It is the equivalent to joining a football team, and then claiming every tackle was a violation of your consent.

If you join as the team manager, then yeah, every tackle is a violation of your consent

The "joining a football team" analogy isn't a good one, in the same way that comparing the consent situation between Open and CQC isn't appropriate. Joining a team as a player is done for one reason: you want to play. And to play that specific sport rather than, let's say, Basketball (where a football tackle would result in severe punishments for whoever initiated it).

(You could argue that the player joins for something else that he can get as a player — say, money or fame — but, in the real world, those other things are available through various other paths. There is no need to attempt to get money and fame by being a football player if you aren't interested in actually playing the game.)

Playing in Open is something with far less focus, that groups together many distinct, very different activities, and activities that even in Open are optional to boot. It's more akin to choosing a place to live; there are a lot of places nearby that you can go to or not as you please, many people that you can meet as you choose, and just because there is crime where you have chosen to live doesn't mean that you consent to having it happen to you.

 

[DarkWalker]

Football is a gentleman's game played by thugs, whereas rugby is a thug's game played by gentlemen!

I get the impression that whether the game being called Football is American Football or Soccer is random in this thread

 

[ianw]

I get the impression that whether the game being called Football is American Football or Soccer is random in this thread

Sorry Football is called Football for a reason. It's played with the foot and a ball.