Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Mouse]

Well Mouse I have seen others take the exact opposite stance..so it must be a balanced game, since everyone is complaining about the same issue from all sides! ;P

- - - Updated - - -



God forbid someone would mention sex in all the vices in this galaxy!

If you would notice though Roybe, those that take the exact opposite stance did so in rebuttal ^,^

 

[Roybe]

I guess there may be some, Roybe, but most on the Solo / Group / (choice) mode aren't actually complaining about Open, just defending the status quo. After all, most of us are quite happy with the game as it is, at least in so far as the modes go...

But the discussion, from both sides, is really moot, though, since the devs have clearly stated many times that this is what they want and will not be changing it.

So, it's not really arguing...it's just restating the facts until people understand that the devs aren't listening to the customers on this, and other basic design choices they have made.

What would happen if the 'status quo' folks just let the people ramble on about Open? We know the game isn't changing...so why bother?

The Open folks will always keep demanding...there is no need to keep trying to convince them otherwise.

 

[Khelder]

PEGI7. That is all.

I'm not sure how that had any relevance to what I said.

(and thank you to Jockey for actually explaining what PEGI7 is)

 

[Faded Glory]

But the discussion, from both sides, is really moot, though, since the devs have clearly stated many times that this is what they want and will not be changing it.

So, it's not really arguing...it's just restating the facts until people understand that the devs aren't listening to the customers on this, and other basic design choices they have made.

What would happen if the 'status quo' folks just let the people ramble on about Open? We know the game isn't changing...so why bother?

The Open folks will always keep demanding...there is no need to keep trying to convince them otherwise.

That's a fair point, and I agree, it's pretty unlikely that FD will suddenly change their mind on the matter of modes. As to stating the facts, well, FD choose (rightly I believe) to remain above the fray in this conversation, (they've stated the facts as they see them, regardless of whether people accept them or not), but that shouldn't mean that members of the community shouldn't state the facts to those who have not bothered to look them up for themselves.

Not much would happen I imagine if we just let the 'Open only, Solo is exploiting / cheating, Open is the one true way to play the game' group ramble on as you put it, but that's not really the point. Some of us don't agree with them, so rather than let what they proclaim to be the truth go unchallenged, we challenge them. I can only speak for myself, but while I don't expect to change their minds, I'm quite happy to point out why I believe they are wrong in what they are so loudly proclaiming to be the truth.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

With the following constraints I think this concept could work very well...

4: It can't expose you to a higher "level of openness" than you had at the time it attached to your hull. If you were in open, then it doesn't matter what mode you're in - he can be instanced with you unless he has taken himself into a private group or solo. If you were in a private group, the tracker only overrides matchmaking if he's in open or in a private group that both of you are members of, if he's in a group you're not in or in solo then he's turned off his tracker.

actually I see a bit of a hole in this.

Private group....... So say i was in open, and I attacked you in your trader. you decide screw this and put a tracker on me before running away.... you then fly back to base to get your combat vuluture on me.... in the mean time I have dropped down to mobius or solo.

but..... what if you were one of those CODE griefers who had been banned from mobius? the thing here, whilst you may be after me, ultimately (hypothetically) you have been banned from a private group and imo you should not be allowed back in to it.

OR

what if I had dropped to solo so I could let little jimmy my (imaginary) 7 year old to play? Remember ED is rated as suitable for 7 year olds, but only because there is no online interaction. by you using your tracker you are making what is a solo experience rated for 7 year olds potentally a higher rated teen game.

Yesterday in theory i thought the idea of a tracker had merits, however now after sleeping on it, I do not think those dogs will bark.

The only way a tracker can work imo would be to have a player show up on your map when they are online and in the same mode as you, and to attempt to preferentially put us in the same instance when near each other. imo this is as far as it will be able to go.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yesterday in theory i thought the idea of a tracker had merits, however now after sleeping on it, I do not think those dogs will bark.

For me, it would be better if the "gain a bounty for destroying a player and you're locked in to Open play" part of the Criminality DDF proposal was implemented. Destroying a player indicates that a player can play and has played in a multi-player mode.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

For me, it would be better if the "gain a bounty for destroying a player and you're locked in to Open play" part of the Criminality DDF proposal was implemented. Destroying a player indicates that a player can play and has played in a multi-player mode.

I agree but a tracker to help the situation so you can see the person who attacked you (when in the same mode as you) could be great to complement that imo.

 

[ianw]

For me, it would be better if the "gain a bounty for destroying a player and you're locked in to Open play" part of the Criminality DDF proposal was implemented. Destroying a player indicates that a player can play and has played in a multi-player mode.

Yes - that seems better to me too.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Disclaimer: English isn't my native language and articulating some more abstract concepts in a foreign language is difficult.

…
A "tracking beacon" that can override your matchmaking preference and let its owner be matched with you no matter your mode (for a limited time - more on that later) would pretty much be the answer to almost every argument on these three megathreads.

Selecting one of the modes on log in is not a way to show the matchmaking preference, it's a statement of the players intention. It's not "I prefer to play that mode" it's "I play this mode".
The moment a second player can, for what ever reason, enter Solo mode that mode isn't Solo mode anymore. That method would simply force the player to do something against is expressed will/intention.
It's in it's core a concept that is designed around denying a human the right of free will.

It's breaking a core design of this game for little gain. Stopping some complains on the forum is not a valid reason to do that.

On top of that it won't stop arguments in the Open vs. Solo megathreads. It is a concept similar to those ideas that fuel this megathreads. These threads always revolve around denying a player the right to choose and forcing the player to do something that player doesn't want to do. It's simply trying to dominate others. This is something I absolutely can't accept in any game.

I bet if that "tracking device" is implemented after a short while players will complain that the tracked victims are able to log out and demand that log out is disabled until the tracking device is timed out. After that they will demand that their victims can't dock in a station for the duration of the device. And after that …

It would just have to be designed carefully.

That sentence along with "what could possible go wrong" is often the beginning of a disaster. Even if a developer does it's best and is really good at designing multiplayer games with PvP, players will find loopholes and "creative use of game mechanics".

The point is, to have a beacon attached to your hull in the first place, you had to be in a mode other than solo for it to happen.

The point is, it absolutely doesn't matter what happened before a player selects a mode. That's the thing players have to accept.

If I were in the mood to play open, but then encountered some unsavory types and relogged in a different mode to avoid them then I am indulging in exactly the behavior the PvP types call an "exploit" (although it isn't) and those of us multi-mode players always groan about when such behavior is brought up as a reason why "the modes should be separate!" …

There is a much easier way to address that "issue" - simply tell them to accept it. "Valid game play". You are basically saying that you want to use a concept that breaks the core design of this game to solve a non existent problem because some players simply can't accept that others don't want to play with them.

If I play in open mode I have to accept to get attacked, get pirated, get destroyed, and all the things "the PvP types" tell me I have to accept. I accept that.
Now you are proposing a concept that forces me to accept that my decision to play solo is irrelevant as long a player decides that I shouldn't be able to play solo?

Switching modes is part of the core concept of this game. Players have to accept that. It's simple. There is no need for an solution, a fix or anything. Players simply have to accept that other players might log out, switch modes or stop playing for the day when ever they want. Players simply have no right to dictate in what mode and when a player plays this game.

I understand that you have only good intentions and what to solve a perceived problem, but this simply isn't solving anything.

With the following constraints I think this concept could work very well...

What happens if the tracked player enters a pure PvE private group?
What happens if the player using the tracking device to track victims in a private pure PvE group?
What happens if the tracked player logs out?
What happens if the tracked player switches ships?
What happens if the tracked player docks in a station and stays there?

Something like that would make this entire triple threadnaught moot, because to be exposed to it you had to be in a "multiplayer" mode in the first place.…

Why does it matter what mode I played before I switch mode? Why should it matter? Why is it so hard to accept my decision and my intentions?

With that in place the "Hardcore PvPers" can't scream "WAAAAH! mode-switching 'sploit!" (well they can but they'll look ridiculous) and the REAL PvPers get a chance for a second bite at somebody who combat-logs on them…

So ruining the game for a lot of players is OK just because some players simply can't accept that sometimes they don't get what they want?
Why do players should get a second chance or "revenge"?
And those who call mode-switching an exploit already look ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

For me, it would be better if the "gain a bounty for destroying a player and you're locked in to Open play" part of the Criminality DDF proposal was implemented. Destroying a player indicates that a player can play and has played in a multi-player mode.

That would result in pirates not being able to switch modes.

A better solution would be to make the NPC security response much stronger. Increase the bounty for killing a CMDR and double the cost for getting rid that bounty. For example killing a CMDR results in a bounty of X credits. The offender gets killed and now has to pay 2X credits in addition to the ship re-buy while the CMDR who killed the offender only gets X cr. as bounty. A better NPC security response would make mode switching not a good way to avoid getting hunted for the bounty.

A possible addition could be that the 2X cost could happen only if the offender gets killed by an NPC. Getting killed by a CMDR could result in the offender only having to pay X for the bounty. That would make it a better choice to stay in Open.

For that to work NPC security would be much, much better and harder to fight. The security rating of a system would have to be meaning full - that way criminals could hide in open in an anarchy system. Player bounty hunters could hunt them and the criminal CMDR would have a motivation to stay in open as the cost would be lower if getting killed by a CMDR.

There are a lot of things that can be done without forcing players to do something they don't want. Everybody should have the right to switch modes at any time.

 

[hunvagy]

Aside from making police more then a joke as suggested, it would be also nice if that cargo insurance display, that is currently mocking me every time I check my status, would actually be implemented. It must be there for a reason.

 

[Jockey79]

That would result in pirates not being able to switch modes.

A better solution would be to make the NPC security response much stronger. Increase the bounty for killing a CMDR and double the cost for getting rid that bounty. For example killing a CMDR results in a bounty of X credits. The offender gets killed and now has to pay 2X credits in addition to the ship re-buy while the CMDR who killed the offender only gets X cr. as bounty. A better NPC security response would make mode switching not a good way to avoid getting hunted for the bounty.

A possible addition could be that the 2X cost could happen only if the offender gets killed by an NPC. Getting killed by a CMDR could result in the offender only having to pay X for the bounty. That would make it a better choice to stay in Open.

For that to work NPC security would be much, much better and harder to fight. The security rating of a system would have to be meaning full - that way criminals could hide in open in an anarchy system. Player bounty hunters could hunt them and the criminal CMDR would have a motivation to stay in open as the cost would be lower if getting killed by a CMDR.

There are a lot of things that can be done without forcing players to do something they don't want. Everybody should have the right to switch modes at any time.

Making the police too strong will prevent people from being pirates in the first place. You'd kill of the entire profession (OMG I'm defending piracy !!!!).

Also, bounties were reduced because they are too open to abuse, and were being abused. You can mode hop to prevent a random bounty hunter collecting and make sure a friend collects it.
And to make it worse, if you don't want anyone collecting at all - you can clear your save. It is not as if it takes long to get a Viper for killing other players with.

All you are doing is defending no repercussions griefing - something both sides want to address in this thread to help with the modes

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Making the police too strong will prevent people from being pirates in the first place. You'd kill of the entire profession (OMG I'm defending piracy !!!!).

Also, bounties were reduced because they are too open to abuse, and were being abused. You can mode hop to prevent a random bounty hunter collecting and make sure a friend collects it.
And to make it worse, if you don't want anyone collecting at all - you can clear your save. It is not as if it takes long to get a Viper for killing other players with.

All you are doing is defending no repercussions griefing - something both sides want to address in this thread to help with the modes

What?

The NPC police shouldn't be to strong. Just strong enough to be a threat. Together with "saver" zones for pirates and other criminal elements this wouldn't kill piracy.
If the offender has to pay more than the one who collects the bounty, then there is no possibility to abuse the system.
Clearing the save is always an option unless the "punishment" is player account based.

Am I missing the irony or sarcasm tags?

 

[Robert Maynard]

That would result in pirates not being able to switch modes.

A better solution would be to make the NPC security response much stronger. Increase the bounty for killing a CMDR and double the cost for getting rid that bounty. For example killing a CMDR results in a bounty of X credits. The offender gets killed and now has to pay 2X credits in addition to the ship re-buy while the CMDR who killed the offender only gets X cr. as bounty. A better NPC security response would make mode switching not a good way to avoid getting hunted for the bounty.

A possible addition could be that the 2X cost could happen only if the offender gets killed by an NPC. Getting killed by a CMDR could result in the offender only having to pay X for the bounty. That would make it a better choice to stay in Open.

For that to work NPC security would be much, much better and harder to fight. The security rating of a system would have to be meaning full - that way criminals could hide in open in an anarchy system. Player bounty hunters could hunt them and the criminal CMDR would have a motivation to stay in open as the cost would be lower if getting killed by a CMDR.

There are a lot of things that can be done without forcing players to do something they don't want. Everybody should have the right to switch modes at any time.

It would result in pirates players who gain bounties destroying other players being temporarily restricted from changing modes.

I agree with the proposal that bounties should be made significantly more financially onerous and more difficult to pay-off / get rid of. I also agree that security service response is a bit too slow and lacking in relation to its effect.

The point that I'm trying to make is that if a player destroys another player then they must have been in a multi-player mode to do so, therefore definitely not Solo and probably not in a Private Group. This demonstrates the fact that the player in question is prepared to play in Open at least some of the time. The issue at hand is that the player can choose to evade the consequences (player bounty hunter response) of gaining a bounty for destroying another player - this seems to be a bit hypocritical on the part of the player given that the bounty was imposed for destroying another player.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Aside from making police more then a joke as suggested, it would be also nice if that cargo insurance display, that is currently mocking me every time I check my status, would actually be implemented. It must be there for a reason.

Hopefully we will be able to insure cargoes at some point. When hauling palladium, the cost of the cargo is significantly greater than the rebuy on my ship.

 

[hunvagy]

Hopefully we will be able to insure cargoes at some point. When hauling palladium, the cost of the cargo is significantly greater than the rebuy on my ship.

Yeah, and it just irks me that I see it on my status display right above ship insurance, and there's no way to use it. It would alleviate a lot of the tension when merchants get blown to bits, if they don't lose millions in cargo, only a fraction of it. Could also make them more available to actually give in to the pirates' demands if they can see some returns from the stolen goods.

 

[Mouse]

What?

The NPC police shouldn't be to strong. Just strong enough to be a threat. Together with "saver" zones for pirates and other criminal elements this wouldn't kill piracy.
If the offender has to pay more than the one who collects the bounty, then there is no possibility to abuse the system.
Clearing the save is always an option unless the "punishment" is player account based.

Am I missing the irony or sarcasm tags?

Personally a couple thoughts to combat this is one..

1. the bounty comes from the perpetrator's own bank account.. and if they don't have enough.. they are put into debt beyond the 1 million, plus they can't buy their ship back and are forced into a starter sidy. So there is no benefit really to getting a friend to cash in.. because your still hosed if caught. There are ways around this but they are time consuming.. and you have to build up the funds for ships again.

It would be interesting if they could make it that if you dont' have funds.. stored ships are "repossessed" to help pay for the bounty.

Piracy can be profitable, but if caught.. you pay the price.

2. While wanted they cannot use any station or outpost in the Faction's civilized space where they are wanted (Fed, Imp, Ali) They need to retreat to pirate space or hope one of the other major powers are not off at them... better hope they have a fuel scoop..

3. Possible idea, Pirate outposts can "pay off your bounty" kind of like the Thieve's guild in Oblivion, but with interest... so you get a million bounty they may pay it off for 3 million.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
The point that I'm trying to make is that if a player destroys another player then they must have been in a multi-player mode to do so, therefore definitely not Solo and probably not in a Private Group. This demonstrates the fact that the player in question is prepared to play in Open at least some of the time. The issue at hand is that the player can choose to evade the consequences (player bounty hunter response) of gaining a bounty for destroying another player - this seems to be a bit hypocritical on the part of the player given that the bounty was imposed for destroying another player.

A strong NPC police would result in a wanted player not being able to evade the consequences as the NPC police is in all modes. Maybe it's not the ideal solution, but in my opinion better than forcing a player into a mode even if it's just for a limited time. The only "issue" is that a player might not be able to get "revenge".

I think a better solution would be to motivate players to stay in open if they killed a CMDR by making switching modes a not so good choice. Making it preferable to get killed by a CMDR bounty hunter instead of a NPC police/bounty hunter.

 

[willowfan]

What?

The NPC police shouldn't be to strong. Just strong enough to be a threat. Together with "saver" zones for pirates and other criminal elements this wouldn't kill piracy.
If the offender has to pay more than the one who collects the bounty, then there is no possibility to abuse the system.
Clearing the save is always an option unless the "punishment" is player account based.

Am I missing the irony or sarcasm tags?

Authority response should be strong in the appropriate systems (ie high population/high tech, capitals, military strongholds etc) if you are attacked in a hicksville agricultural system or pirate hangout then not so much...

 

[Robert Maynard]

A strong NPC police would result in a wanted player not being able to evade the consequences as the NPC police is in all modes. Maybe it's not the ideal solution, but in my opinion better than forcing a player into a mode even if it's just for a limited time. The only "issue" is that a player might not be able to get "revenge".

I think a better solution would be to motivate players to stay in open if they killed a CMDR by making switching modes a not so good choice. Making it preferable to get killed by a CMDR bounty hunter instead of a NPC police/bounty hunter.

I agree about the police response - as it applies equally to all modes.

I would be opposed to making modes other than Open "not so good choice" - that implies that the other modes would be in some way different from Open. The only difference between modes is the presence / absence / limited population of other players.