Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

[DarkWalker]

Bounties won't work, it's too exploitable. If you have a big bounty on you, just get your buddy to kill you while in a sidewinder. Do the same for him. Profit.

I've seen one way to make this work once: just cap the bounty at a fraction of what the killed player effectively lost, say 50%. As an example, suppose a player has a 2M bounty, and the buyback on his ship is 1M; whoever kills that player collects only 500K from the bounty (half what the killed player effectively lost, in this case his buyback), and the killed player will still have a 1,5M bounty afterwards.

In other words, the bounty would work as a contract to inflict loses on the target, with payment proportional to the inflicted loses until the full bounty was paid.

 

[Jockey79]

I honestly think that it is crap that a player or a group of players can completely tank the proffit of my trade route without me ever seeing or being able to do anything about it i was trading in 2 systems for about 3 weeks being really carefull not to tank it all of a sudden it starts tanking hard my proffit does now i have not seen a player in 3 weeks if i can see them i can drive them off and kill them group and solo should in no way affect open play

1, Just because you do not see them, does not mean they are in solo/private. The matchmaking system may not like the pings between you, so it keeps you apart, even if you're all in open. (after all, you'd complain of a lag related death).
2, You have no idea how many people have started hitting that trade route - at best you can see 31 other CMDRs - so if 100+ are now using the route, how are you going to stop the other 68+ in other open instances?
3, You have just as much sway as anyone else. No more, no less.
4, Even if you see someone and "drive them off", they can put you on block so the matchmaker keeps you apart anyway, so at best you'd get a couple of kills before people just block you in open.
5, Even if they could not block you in game, it is a P2P system - they can block your IP in their router/firewall, so you're still gone from their instance as you cannot connect to them.

This was all public knowledge before the game went on sale, by the way.

 

[Commander Silex]

Seems like 'open' need more players, and as more and more people buy the game they can be enticed to join open .. (now that there is one main thread with no bear references allowed)

I'm not entirely sure this is accurate, but of course if anyone could give me numbers that said otherwise I'd reconsider. I see a lot of people in open play, some areas are positively bristling. I think generally the game is likely to find us fairly sparsely spread out in any case, but at present I wouldn't say I feel Open is in any danger of being deserted.

Yep piracy needs some love, needs to be dynamic with more options and more risk/fines, since you dont get much of a fine for pirating (or none at all if you dont open fire), so its almost a risk-free career option (yeah blah blah blah on the 200cr bounty for opening fire on a 'clean' pilot, big deal, 200cr is worth less than 5c relatively speaking, and hell-easy to enter a base and pay off your fine)

I think the ability to simply pay off a fine for player murder without it being even slightly inconvenient is an issue. That said, I wouldn't like to see the system become so punitive that no-one in their right mind would choose piracy. You have to also consider that pirates operating in busy and policed systems are generally screwing their rep over time, regardless of paying off their bounties. Whilst it is entirely possible a pirate could undo this damage with careful management, it's a lengthy process to ingratiate yourself with factions who are turning hostile towards you. It seems more likely that in the long run pirates will end up despised by swathes of populated space. How meaningfully this affects them at the moment could be debated, but it's certainly not entirely meaningless.

My personal thought, and a slightly cynical one at that, is that art should imitate life in so far as the ultimate crime being 'messing with the money'. Whilst killing players with low or nonexistent cargo values and little impact on trade routes could continue to be publicly abhorred yet the pursuit of criminals subject to gross corruption, the murder of wealthy traders contributing to the economy of entire systems is going to directly affect the pockets of the powers that be. As such they might come with very large bounties, but to my mind this would be somewhat open to abuse and also a blunt approach. Instead these bounties might have no way to pay them off, or much higher multipliers to do so - at least prior to collection of said bounty, at which point they might be best returned to the standard multiplier to prevent every player pirate death resulting in a return to a sidewinder. Continued and persistant murder of 'nobodies' might still result in becoming labelled a 'danger to society' also resulting in increased stickiness of bounties.

However in regards to the 'modes' , like someone said earlier .. its perfect the way it is, it aint broke, so it dont need fixing.

Certainly in agreement with you here.

 

[DarkWalker]

What I'm scared of is getting caught in a bait and switch scam where I paid for something I like and it gets changed to something I don't.

Which is how some of the players that either backed during KS or pre-purchased the game already feel about the missing offline mode. Removing or limiting solo mode would rekindle the complaints, throwing fuel at the cooling embers of anger that remain from that event, and pull into it a fair part of the players that prefer to play in solo.

If that is to ever happen, I really wouldn't want to be among the ones tasked with keeping the forums civil

 

[Jockey79]

Which is how some of the players that either backed during KS or pre-purchased the game already feel about the missing offline mode. Removing or limiting solo mode would rekindle the complaints, throwing fuel at the cooling embers of anger that remain from that event, and pull into it a fair part of the players that prefer to play in solo.

If that is to ever happen, I really wouldn't want to be among the ones tasked with keeping the forums civil

I think all the Mods would suddenly be ill for a few weeks. lol

 

[Dabba]

I think the ability to simply pay off a fine for player murder without it being even slightly inconvenient is an issue. That said, I wouldn't like to see the system become so punitive that no-one in their right mind would choose piracy. You have to also consider that pirates operating in busy and policed systems are generally screwing their rep over time, regardless of paying off their bounties. Whilst it is entirely possible a pirate could undo this damage with careful management, it's a lengthy process to ingratiate yourself with factions who are hostile to you. It seems more likely that in the long run pirates will end up despised by swathes of populated space. How meaningfully this affects them at the moment could be debated, but it's certainly not entirely meaningless.

Totally agree with you here, and while I agree that we shouldnt make the penalties for legitimate piracy so punitive that nobody does it, we should make the penalties for wanton murder that way. I wouldnt mind getting tapped by a pirate if I was reasonably sure Id get away with my life and most of my cargo if I dropped them some loot, but there is simply not enough deterrent in place to keep the murderers in check. I think that the bounty for murder should be equal to the rebuy cost the murdered player has for their insurance policy plus the base value of their destroyed cargo.

Which is how some of the players that either backed during KS or pre-purchased the game already feel about the missing offline mode. Removing or limiting solo mode would rekindle the complaints, throwing fuel at the cooling embers of anger that remain from that event, and pull into it a fair part of the players that prefer to play in solo.

If that is to ever happen, I really wouldn't want to be among the ones tasked with keeping the forums civil

It would be worse than that. If they were to remove Solo mode there would be a class action lawsuit against them, as there are laws in the US and the UK that protect against bait and switch marketing, and I can guarantee we would be victorious. The law is murky on a kickstarter, that is more of an investment than a purchase, and doesn't guarantee you get what you hope you were paying for in the end, but as Solo was an advertised part of this game and it has officially launched they no longer have the option of taking that away without consequences.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

what i see here are 2 groups of people: those who are unhappy and want to change some aspects of the game, and others, who are just happy with the game as it is now, probably think they own the game by some god given right, and don't really care about it's future, about reviews on the web, if it will progesss and develop or anything else in particular.

It's a little deeper than that. The give open players more threads are a prime example. They aren't simple requests for the developers to add something, they're targeted requests where one group is specifically asking for not just more, but more than "them".

The group that you think is being possessive of the game is naturally put off when another group starts demanding more for me but less for thee. Everyone wants more content, but it's naturally divisive when one group explicitly wants more than another. It becomes less about adding to the game, and more about playing favorites.

 

[Zenicetus]

what i see here are 2 groups of people: those who are unhappy and want to change some aspects of the game, and others, who are just happy with the game as it is now, probably think they own the game by some god given right, and don't really care about it's future, about reviews on the web, if it will progesss and develop or anything else in particular.

I think everyone here, on all sides of an issue like this, care about the game's future. Otherwise we wouldn't be so passionate in these discussions. The fact that we have different futures in mind doesn't alter that.

Here's something to consider though, while we're discussing the game's future. There are two major space games on the horizon that will offer a play style that is closer to what the unhappy contingent here are asking for, and that's EvE Valkyrie and Star Citizen -- open world PvP on a traditional client/server model. Star Citizen has a singleplayer project with Squadron 42 thing, but the main game is a single open world PvP model as I understand it (with a private server option on the side).

For ED to remain competitive, they need to offer something different, for a different audience. And that's what they're doing. Or do you feel ED would have more success by aping what the competitors are doing?

 

[Beetlebum]

- If the ship/progress used in each game mode was unique, wouldnt that prevent some of the resentment?

so,

.. Solo mode : ship, $, rep, stats all were unique to solo mode, changing modes means you go back to Sidey + 1000 cr
.. Group mode : ship, $, rep, stats all were unique to 1 specific group, changing modes or groups means you go back to Sidey + 1000 cr
.. Open mode : ship, $, rep, stats all were unique to open mode, changing modes means you go back to Sidey + 1000 cr

Would this not at least counter some of the resentment toward solo/group players of earning without risk, then showing up fully armed due to all the profits gained in solo/group ?

Brilliant idea! Like this, +1 rep.

 

[Beetlebum]

I see more people defending solo play on these forums than open. it's probably because the open guys have come to the conclusion "what is the point, i'm just going to get shot down and flamed for even suggesting / talking about better options for open play" I also believe that because FD didn't provide the off line mode that some of the solo guys wanted, neigh, demanded and didn't get that are still smarting from it and are overly defensive / aggressive about holding onto what they did get. they are in other words scared of change.

I agree on this. The solo "defence" force is like "shut up, the game won't change", whereas in other threads they make game changing suggestions too. A constructive discussion on game mode improvement is hardly possible, when people deny the possibility of improvement beforehand.

 

[Jockey79]

I agree on this. The solo "defence" force is like "shut up, the game won't change", whereas in other threads they make game changing suggestions too.

There is a difference between suggesting ideas that improve the game for everyone and suggesting ideas that only help one group (or hinder another group).

 

[Asp Explorer]

There is a difference between suggesting ideas that improve the game for everyone and suggesting ideas that only help one group (or hinder another group).

Exactly - especially when those suggestions are always "Force Open, need guilds, own space and player crafting" - every single time

 

[eeps]

The issue with that is you aren't really understanding how the game works. There is really only one game, one data source, one galaxy, one background sim. The "modes" as you call them are nothing more than a matchmaking filter. They aren't truly different game modes, just a way to filter who you can be paired with while you are in the one game world that exists.

If you really want to get more people into Open you're going to have to make them feel safer in the areas that are supposed to be safe. Right now there is no risk and no consequence for the pirates and killers in their cheap ships getting their miniscule bounties, all of the risk and cost burden is on the shoulders of the traders. This is where an adjustment needs to be made if you want to get more traders into Open.

I'm sorry I made no attempt to describe 'how the game works' , and indeed dont really care how it works. You are (probably) entirely correct, but that's neither here nor there..

I just used the term 'mode' to make it easier for people to get my point, but if you wanna get technical go right ahead.

It seems we are in agreement, I'm not pushing for more people to goto 'open' play, far from it.

 

[Beetlebum]

There is a difference between suggesting ideas that improve the game for everyone and suggesting ideas that only help one group (or hinder another group).

If one group is discriminated, it is just reasonable to help it, I think. More love to the competetive hardcore gamers, dear devs, please!

 

[Driver]

what i see here are 2 groups of people: those who are unhappy and want to change some aspects of the game, and others, who are just happy with the game as it is now, probably think they own the game by some god given right, and don't really care about it's future, about reviews on the web, if it will progesss and develop or anything else in particular.

That's funny, because I see two groups of people, the larger group who are happy because they bought a game that suits them and the way they want to play. The second group are unhappy, possibly because they failed to check out the game before they bought into it. That second, smaller group, are desperately trying to force the game to change to suit their preferred play style.

 

[Dabba]

I agree on this. The solo "defence" force is like "shut up, the game won't change", whereas in other threads they make game changing suggestions too. A constructive discussion on game mode improvement is hardly possible, when people deny the possibility of improvement beforehand.

Well if we are talking about making improvements to the game then thats great. Of course trying to force people into Open or gating content for only one group of players would not be an improvement, so that doesn't really apply. I am all for the game changing and improvements being added, but the matchmaking filter is perfect the way it is, so there is no reason for that to be touched.

If one group is discriminated, it is just reasonable to help it, I think. More love to the competetive hardcore gamers, dear devs, please!

I don't think anyone is being discriminated against, and I would definitely be against that. Any improvements or content additions should of course be available for all the players.

 

[scoda]

Converted! Solo to Open Play Trader!

Hi All,

Feel I need to share this with you lot.. I was always under the opinion that it was crazy to the a trader and going into Open Play. With all those "crazy ramming griefers" ruining your peaceful existence while you just try to grind an honest credit.. Who wants to pay the huge insurance costs everytime to leave station and get popped?? Especially in the bigger ships! I just traded up finally to a Python with 14m spare to bling it up for trading/exploring/bounty hunting, and theres no way in hell I'm gonna take it into Open Play ever!

Well.. Something happened today.. I decided to take the plunge into Open Play.. The day after I fit out my new trader! What the hell?? And I gotta say it was amazing! I met 2 other traders in the same system as I, one from UK the other from USA and within a few minutes I was chatting to them and invited into their Friends Lists.. "Wow!! This is great!" I thought... All this time Ive been grinding away talking to myself, feeling very very alone... But today, I was yarning with two other traders and it turned Elite Dangerous into a living breathing place! And chatting to the other guys it was suprising to hear that there are quite a few nice CMDR's around and that not everyone wants to grief or kill you! Yes there are still dangers lurking out there, but its amazing how much more you are scanning your immediate surroundings for any new contacts.. Feeling that element to real excitment and danger that I was missing..

I had to share this.. I urge peeps to just give it a try... I'm glad I did! I have been converted from Solo to Open Play and will remain there.. I'm not saying its for everyone, but if it opens up a living world for others reading this as it did for me, then sharing this was worth it! My perceptions of Open Play were completely wrong...


o7

Added: Reading this back I guess some could see it as a Troll to get people into Open, but please look at my previous posts and you will see that this is not the case...

 

[Beetlebum]

Exactly - especially when those suggestions are always "Force Open, need guilds, own space and player crafting" - every single time

Well, I haven't suggested anything like that ever. Everyone should play the game as he likes. And it would be great, if the hardcore gamers could do that too.

 

[eeps]

And what about a Dad who normally plays open , but wants to play in a group with family to ensure they have a good time and encounter no swearing, or the pvp tournament, organised in a group to stop idiot ramming the contestants...its fine how it is;full freedom of movement

Then that 'dad' (who is very similar to me), might have to build 2 ships, 2 reps and 2 bank accounts, one for each style of play.

I sympathise with you. THE VERY FIRST human interaction I had in-game involved voice comms with some pvp swearing loudly into his mike .. which was heard accross my household so my 2 year old could pick it up. Nice.

I'm only making a suggestion, I appreciate you may disagree, thats all cool man, you're entitled to. I'm just trying to help the pvp/open people get some success, since the solo/group people already have their cake and are eating it.

 

[Beetlebum]

Well if we are talking about making improvements to the game then thats great. Of course trying to force people into Open or gating content for only one group of players would not be an improvement, so that doesn't really apply. I am all for the game changing and improvements being added, but the matchmaking filter is perfect the way it is, so there is no reason for that to be touched.

A new game mode wouldn't hurt anyone. No one is forced to join that game mode. Everyone could still switch between normal open/solo/group.