- Status
thanks.
No mention of providing tactical advantages.
Looking at that, it shows a number of aspects that have veered from the original concept. Because at that time it was just a concept, still to take shape and grow.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Some elements may have changed somewhat, however, the three modes and the ability to switch between them at will have survived two years of near constant "debates" on their merits (or not as the case may be) and are included in the released game. I would contend that that is a pretty strong indication that these particular features are here to stay - because they still fit in with Frontier's vision for the game.
Contributions ARE equal in my solution normalized to the type of enemy you fight. You don't get the same amount of money for killing a cobra vs an anaconda, so why a player, which I usually find harder than an anaconda.
Then you fast forward to now and see how it shook out. Giving the players the choice to control their experience is the fairest approach considering the evolution of the game. Choice is key, narrowing the choices available, or stigmatizing one mode or another through game design would reduce the potential draw of the game. Anyone not interested n PvP can take solace in Solo/Group. Those who care for PvP can pursue their fun in Open. Win Win. The only negative comes from players who perceive, somehow, that Open is the default setting. Open is just one of three choices available to all.
The only solution that fixes everything is separating the modes which won't happen. The only thing left is piecemeal solutions like this for every part of the game. Yes it fixes only one area (on purpose) but it's a start.
Last edited:
and that quote says:
This is the problem I am describing. The only reason you would make a tactical switch (and I'm specifically talking about tactical switches) is if you perceive one mode to provide advantages over the other.
Whether this needs to come from some switching speedbump, or through better balancing the risk and rewards in each mode, is for debate. But if it wasn't easier, people wouldn't be switching as often.
I can see paying the same Combat Bond for a Player and an NPC based on ship type, but insisting that there be a 'danger tax' is just ridiculous. How can a game, or a person for that matter, fairly judge how much more 'dangerous' a players is? You don;t get a larger Bond for downing an Elite Anaconda over a Novice one, why for a player? Trying to do this just adds to the "Open is the true way" doctrine going around, thus marginalizing one mode over another.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I've gone into Solo for Combat Bonds a few times just to avoid stealing others kills. It is almost impossible to know when another player has tagged a ship. So, to be polite I've shifted into Solo. There are more reasons for this stuff than just to avoid the easily avoidable PC's. That's why you can't make fundamental changes. like you argue for, for one dubious issue.
Last edited:
Anton Cano
Banned
The most dangerous aspect of Elite: Dangerous is the player element. Players can organize, blockade, and fight better than any AI ever could. Players are the driving force behind the background simulation and change in the galaxy.
The three modes of play currently impact the same galaxy simulation and share the same save. This is a terrible mistake. They should not, as two of the modes of play have very different mentalities and goals than the third mode of play, and different levels of interaction with the most dangerous aspect of Elite: Dangerous and any other multiplayer sandbox game: players.
Doing anything other than completely separating player saves and galaxy simulations between Solo/Group and Open modes will end up pleasing nobody. If you reduce the rewards granted for playing in Solo/Group mode vs. Open mode, the first group will be upset and feel cheated. If you increase rewards or add additional incentives to Open mode and leave Solo/Group mode as it is, the second group will be upset and feel cheated. If you continue to allow players to switch between Solo/Group and Open in order to minimize their risk and maximize their reward, the group of players who plays strictly on Open will continue to feel upset and cheated.
If you split Solo/Group and Open, you will...
The fact that this is even a topic of conversation brought up by Frontier is testament to the fact that they recognize their initial design intent is not going to work when you have such varying styles of play. Now, I do acknowledge that there are two groups of players who would be hurt by this change.
The first group are players who switch from Open to Solo/Group to avoid risk. Those players should pick a mode and stick with it (or play both separately) rather than taking the path of least resistance when it suits them. Again, the name of the game is Elite: Dangerous, and other players are the most dangerous part of the game. If players want to play without the risk of being blown up by other players, they should play in Solo/Group, where they can just play alone or where they can play with just their trusted friends. However, if Frontier was willing to go all the way with the split (as they should)...
The second group of players who would be hurt by this change are those that do not wish to play in Open because of the possibility of PvP, but still want to encounter other players. For these players Frontier could further split Open into Open PvP and Open PvE, both with different background simulations. I feel that this is the most sensible solution to please players who want the full Open sandbox experience and those who want a less dangerous Open sandbox experience.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
The three modes of play currently impact the same galaxy simulation and share the same save. This is a terrible mistake. They should not, as two of the modes of play have very different mentalities and goals than the third mode of play, and different levels of interaction with the most dangerous aspect of Elite: Dangerous and any other multiplayer sandbox game: players.
Doing anything other than completely separating player saves and galaxy simulations between Solo/Group and Open modes will end up pleasing nobody. If you reduce the rewards granted for playing in Solo/Group mode vs. Open mode, the first group will be upset and feel cheated. If you increase rewards or add additional incentives to Open mode and leave Solo/Group mode as it is, the second group will be upset and feel cheated. If you continue to allow players to switch between Solo/Group and Open in order to minimize their risk and maximize their reward, the group of players who plays strictly on Open will continue to feel upset and cheated.
If you split Solo/Group and Open, you will...
- PRESERVE the ability for people who never want any social interaction (Solo) to continue playing the way they want.
- PRESERVE the ability for people who sometimes want very specific types of player interaction (Group) to continue playing the way they want.
- PRESERVE the ability for people who always want varying types of player interaction (Open) to continue playing the way they want.
- SOLVE the problem of players dropping from Open to Solo/Group to conduct lucrative trade operations with minimal risk.
- SOLVE the problem of players dropping from Open to Solo/Group to conduct conflict zone operations with minimal risk.
- SOLVE the problem of players dropping from Open to Solo/Group to conduct community event operations with minimal risk.
The fact that this is even a topic of conversation brought up by Frontier is testament to the fact that they recognize their initial design intent is not going to work when you have such varying styles of play. Now, I do acknowledge that there are two groups of players who would be hurt by this change.
The first group are players who switch from Open to Solo/Group to avoid risk. Those players should pick a mode and stick with it (or play both separately) rather than taking the path of least resistance when it suits them. Again, the name of the game is Elite: Dangerous, and other players are the most dangerous part of the game. If players want to play without the risk of being blown up by other players, they should play in Solo/Group, where they can just play alone or where they can play with just their trusted friends. However, if Frontier was willing to go all the way with the split (as they should)...
The second group of players who would be hurt by this change are those that do not wish to play in Open because of the possibility of PvP, but still want to encounter other players. For these players Frontier could further split Open into Open PvP and Open PvE, both with different background simulations. I feel that this is the most sensible solution to please players who want the full Open sandbox experience and those who want a less dangerous Open sandbox experience.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Last edited:
Yes. However, I think some weight should be added to how each mode can benefit from more players, and diverse playing styles.
solo - whether there is one player, or 7 billion, the game will be the same.
group - if the group size strays the same - the status quo does it's thing.
open - more players and more game styles improve the game. (before some soloist tells me that they don't see these as "improvements" you're not going to see any difference in solo, so pipe down).
so by encouraging more to open (as opposed to there being encouragements to play solo) doesn't hurt solo, doesn't hurt groups, but boosts open. The sum of all the groups is increasing (hey darkwater, almost maths there
)a reminder isnt eve here or somekind pvp centric game ...
and they switch to avoid the pvpers what u dont get?
but exactly what you described is the problem. You say it was to not steal, but you also don't compete.
In the BD+03 3225 (forget the actual system) community goal, it was hard to get bonds. If you happened to a zone with no one else, you could make hand over fist. but with company, it was slow going. It doesn't have to be a case of running away from danger. Just switching for an advantage is against the entire ethos of the feature.
Hmm... was it?
the difference between an elite anaconda and a novice one is minimal. The difference between a viper and an anaconda is not minimal and neither is the difference between a npc and player. If the difference between novice and elite were substantial I would argue that the "danger tax" already in place as you call it be added to more skilled npcs as well. And it's not really a tax it's more of a bonus to the bond per ship value, and this is already in the game.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Yup. It's in another thread.
nope. I'm afraid that babble is incomprehensible.
You mention eve, pvp and pvpers. I'm not sure of the context. Are you sure you quoted the correct post?
I've had a few goes at it now... I think I'm getting somewhere... you say "it isn't a pvp centric game. Players are switching to avoid pvp" is that right?
I can agree and understand that reason. But it shouldn't be as an advantage.
Playing solo because you don't want any chance of pvp is fine. I personally think it's a pity, but there are a lot who want it, and because of that, it's probably right that it is there.
But deciding to play solo because you have an advantage in that mode is what I have a problem with. The game shouldn't be about switching modes, and using out of game mechanics to make your life easier. It should be driven by actions in game.
If you want to play solo, play solo. If you want to play in open, play in open. But make your choice based upon the merits of each game mode, not cheating the system.
Here is one scenario that doesn't involve combat logging, but does involve avoiding consequences.
Let's say we have Bob, a trader. Bob usually plays in Open. Bob decides to take his shiny new T7 hauler to a system well known for two things: plentiful rare goods and pirates preying on traders. So Bob goes to the system, lands on a station and loads up with the goods.
"What's this?" - says Bob, upon seeing a notification of three new contacts appearing in local. He does what every smart trader does, and checks his comms contacts for the list of player ships.
A Python, a FdL and a Vulture. Doesn't look good. Maybe if he can target them and see who they are...
It's Neckbeard and his cronies!
So what can Bob do? If he undocks, he knows CMDR Neckbeard and his pals are waiting for him. His T7 wouldn't stand a chance, he would get robbed and crunched!
So naughty Bob logs out... and logs back in solo. Whew! He flies out of the station, and to the next system, whereupon he logs out again, and logs back in Open.
Threat avoided... as well as consequence of risking a pirate infested system in a slow, ill-prepared ship.
Pretty much the same as when CMDR Neckbeard cleared his bounty immediately after slaughtering Phil (who didn't switch to Solo), thus avoiding the attention of CMDR Chuck, the famous bounty hunter.
Just because you are a trader doesn't mean you also do not make actions that require consequences to be visited upon you.
And see, that's where FD messed up. They tried to force two incompatible things together. The threat of consequence of your actions and the means to avoid them altogether.
Your problem is that you like multiplayer and PvP games and and can't conceive any reason anyone else would not want to play the way you want to play except to cheat. There are tons of reasons many don't want to play in open. The simplest being that they don't like multiplayer games. Don't want to talk to other people and want to be able to quit at any moment that a crisis crops up at home without any penalties. Even in a private group which I play, when you play with strangers in a wing you often end up being tied down to them for a period and it's often inconvenient for you to just quit.
Often it has nothing to do with gameplay mechanics outside of someone not wanting to play with other people, or not having the time or convenience of a good connection. Some may be morally opposed to shooting at other people even in a game, or not want to put up with the kind of filthy language that almost any MP game is often abused with. In open you can't choose the people you interact with and you have a much higher chance of meeting someone you would rather not have to deal with.
I choose to play in the private group because removing PvP outside of CZ with strictly adhered too rules. The chances of meeting a complete sociopath thug are quite slim. And that's just the way I like it.
Working as advertised, expected, and intended. What Neckbeard and his cronies ought to have done was run silent and cold before their prey cottoned on to them.
now u really believe that neckbeard would had to think all of that? why not make it easy for him lol
Your problem is you don't read posts before replying.
I didn't say people shouldn't play in solo, or that they shouldn't be able to switch.
I said they shouldn't switch for an advantage. There is no reason that solo should be an advantage, but there are numerous situations where it is.
- Status