Why is being a "prey" of a pirate in open a bad game design...

[Robert Maynard]

There is no word that you will have a game "on a full scale", only if it is allowed by the other players, who do not really need it. It doesn't say that "bounty hunting / piracy / murder" can only be fully implemented in relation to NPCs, and in the case of other players, you must get the other player's approval for all of this. Don't you think something's wrong?

Frontier cannot force players to play along as targets for other players - if they tried it then there's no way that Frontier can force players to continue playing the game....

Put simply, players who engage in play-styles that depend on other players will be vulnerable to those players not wanting to play with them - to attempt to do otherwise would be to attempt to deny the choices of players who have paid just as much for the game.

 

[MadSinUN]

Open is free for all. If that doesn't work with somebodies playstyle, there are the solo/pg modes. There are 3 modes, so chose the one which closest represents what you want to get out of the game.
Looking for cr/hr or reaching a goal with almost no risk to setback, solo. PG if you want the same but with some player interactions. Interested in unpredictable player interactions, open. It's that simple.

This is simple but in the case of open mode it is not quite so. There is a lock, there is a "magic lock" there is a "magic transition to solo" with which you can escape from any danger. This is one of the problems that is often brought up for discussion.

 

[MadSinUN]

How about the part of your quote above, that says "... Travel the galaxy alone in the intended Solo Mode, or be one of the many in the Open Game mode..." It says it right there that you have a choice. No one, not even FD owe you game play.

Seek what you like, and let others do the same.

Frontier cannot force players to play along as targets for other players - if they tried it then there's no way that Frontier can force players to continue playing the game....

Put simply, players who engage in play-styles that depend on other players will be vulnerable to those players not wanting to play with them - to attempt to do otherwise would be to attempt to deny the choices of players who have paid just as much for the game.

Is this a way of trolling? I'm talking about " a curtailed open regime bordering on the absurd." What is the significance of the free choice of other modes in this problem?
I'm talking about the fact that nowhere is written about this feature of open mode that so many people are annoyed.

 

[Mohrgan]

This is simple but in the case of open mode it is not quite so. There is a lock, there is a "magic lock" there is a "magic transition to solo" with which you can escape from any danger. This is one of the problems that is often brought up for discussion.

It's only a problem for those who cannot accept the rules of the game.

 

[MadSinUN]

It's only a problem for those who cannot accept the rules of the game.

Do you accept all the rules of this game?

 

[Leper Messiah]

This is simple but in the case of open mode it is not quite so. There is a lock, there is a "magic lock" there is a "magic transition to solo" with which you can escape from any danger. This is one of the problems that is often brought up for discussion.

FD should let us have 2 or 3 commander save slots and they are LOCKED to a mode, so you play in solo, you stay in solo and you play in open you stay in open. I think the issue is mode switching is abused.

 

[Mohrgan]

Is this a way of trolling? I'm talking about " a curtailed open regime bordering on the absurd." What is the significance of the free choice of other modes in this problem?
I'm talking about the fact that nowhere is written about this feature of open mode that so many people are annoyed.

I will need some clarification on this post. I have no idea what you mean. I pointed out the material you missed, in your own statement, and now we're on about some regime.

 

[MadSinUN]

FD should let us have 2 or 3 commander save slots and they are LOCKED to a mode, so you play in solo, you stay in solo and you play in open you stay in open. I think the issue is mode switching is abused.

Complete agreement. This is one of the components of the overall problem.

 

[Mohrgan]

Do you accept all the rules of this game?

Yeah. While they're in effect. I see no point in cheating in my entertainment. And, I'll suggest changes to the rules along the way too. But, I will say, that I don't expect FD to up-turn some of the most basic aspects of this game's design to perfect it for my play styles. I allow for other players to seek their own entertainment.

 

[Mohrgan]

FD should let us have 2 or 3 commander save slots and they are LOCKED to a mode, so you play in solo, you stay in solo and you play in open you stay in open. I think the issue is mode switching is abused.

What if those players that now play in Solo/PG only progress those characters locked into Solo or a PG, or not decide to have an open commander? We're right back to where we are now....

 

[MadSinUN]

I will need some clarification on this post. I have no idea what you mean. I pointed out the material you missed, in your own statement, and now we're on about some regime.

If you missed it, I didn't just mention this material

There is no word that you will have a game "on a full scale", only if it is allowed by the other players, who do not really need it. It doesn't say that "bounty hunting / piracy / murder" can only be fully implemented in relation to NPCs, and in the case of other players, you must get the other player's approval for all of this.

This is from the Steam store: "Multiplayer
Be prepared for unexpected encounters – the huge multiplayer universe of Elite Dangerous has players from all over the world. Travel the galaxy alone in the intended Solo Mode, or be one of the many in the Open Game mode, where every pilot you meet can become your loyal ally or sworn enemy. To start playing, you need to register for a free Elite Dangerous account."

And here it is: https://www.elitedangerous.com/features/fight/

Just do not need to write to me again that "Fdev does not prohibit mode change and implies different game modes available to all", save your fingers.

I am outraged by the significant inaccuracy of the description of the "multiplayer" of this game which significantly reduces the full scope and functionality of open multiplayer as indicated in the official description.
At the same time, I do not plan to go somewhere and do not suggest that other players do it. I suggest that we team up and find a decent solution to a similar problem that irritates a number of players including me. I suggest not to engage a simple conversation, and deal with proposals of solutions. And in the end to find a solution that will suit you or will not be irritating for all types of players. A solution that can be conveyed to the developers and get a constructive response from them.

 

[Just Paul]

This is simple but in the case of open mode it is not quite so. There is a lock, there is a "magic lock" there is a "magic transition to solo" with which you can escape from any danger. This is one of the problems that is often brought up for discussion.

People who log or switch mode by the first sign of danger played in the wrong mode to begin with. I have no issue if the open population is a little smaller if that people play in solo/pg. I rather play with people who like to play in open the way it is than with people who log at the first sign of danger.
I had some fun testing my new Pax-conda yesterday against 2 CMDRs. My client crashed during 1 interdiction and once back in the game we fought without waking out, which naturally resulted with me exploding. I had a nice big ship fight with one of them after and won that one. I rather have that then the countless people logging then I just ask if they have tasty cargo.

 

[MadSinUN]

Yeah. While they're in effect. I see no point in cheating in my entertainment. And, I'll suggest changes to the rules along the way too. But, I will say, that I don't expect FD to up-turn some of the most basic aspects of this game's design to perfect it for my play styles. I allow for other players to seek their own entertainment.

And you are completely satisfied with all these rules? I don't expect anything from Fdev either. But it is worth trying, and for this you need to unite and offer solutions and not to figure out who is right and who is guilty.

 

[Mohrgan]

If you missed it, I didn't just mention this material



This is from the Steam store: "Multiplayer
Be prepared for unexpected encounters – the huge multiplayer universe of Elite Dangerous has players from all over the world. Travel the galaxy alone in the intended Solo Mode, or be one of the many in the Open Game mode, where every pilot you meet can become your loyal ally or sworn enemy. To start playing, you need to register for a free Elite Dangerous account."

And here it is: https://www.elitedangerous.com/features/fight/

Just do not need to write to me again that "Fdev does not prohibit mode change and implies different game modes available to all", save your fingers.

I am outraged by the significant inaccuracy of the description of the "multiplayer" of this game which significantly reduces the full scope and functionality of open multiplayer as indicated in the official description.
At the same time, I do not plan to go somewhere and do not suggest that other players do it. I suggest that we team up and find a decent solution to a similar problem that irritates a number of players including me. I suggest not to engage a simple conversation, and deal with proposals of solutions. And in the end to find a solution that will suit you or will not be irritating for all types of players. A solution that can be conveyed to the developers and get a constructive response from them.

What does the part of your quote that says: "...Travel the galaxy alone in the intended Solo Mode, or be one of the many in the Open Game mode.."

Let's start there and move on.

If you have a problem with the advertising, take it up with Steam. But, in that very paragraph that caught you, it says you have a choice to play in Solo or Open. I can't answer for why PGs aren't mentioned, it must have been an editorial choice.

 

[MadSinUN]

If you have a problem with the advertising, take it up with Steam. But, in that very paragraph that caught you, it says you have a choice to play in Solo or Open. I can't answer for why PGs aren't mentioned, it must have been an editorial choice.

Just do not need to write to me again that "Fdev does not prohibit mode change and implies different game modes available to all", save your fingers.

I am outraged by the significant inaccuracy of the description of the "multiplayer" of this game which significantly reduces the full scope and functionality of open multiplayer as indicated in the official description.

What does the part of your quote that says: "...Travel the galaxy alone in the intended Solo Mode, or be one of the many in the Open Game mode.."

This is not my quote, this is information from the official site and I am not specifically interested in it. I was interested in the definition of "full-scale multiplayer game".

 

[Mohrgan]

And you are completely satisfied with all these rules? I don't expect anything from Fdev either. But it is worth trying, and for this you need to unite and offer solutions and not to figure out who is right and who is guilty.

Read more. Cry less.

In my reply I said: "And, I'll suggest changes to the rules along the way too." In relation to the Modes and PvP (The basic subject of this thread) I am currently happy with the situation. That situation was/is a large reason I invested in E|D. I aim to preserve the way it is arranged.

Open made their beds, now they have to lie in them.

 

[Mohrgan]

This is not my quote, this is information from the official site and I am not specifically interested in it. I was interested in the definition of "full-scale multiplayer game".

It is the quote you provided. And in it, there is no mention of a "full-scale multiplayer game", but there is mention of the choice you can make to get involved or not. The point remains, Steam and/or FD make it plain that you have a choice to play along with, or without other players.

 

[Brrokk]

For many pages I tried to believe that this thread was different as it was addressing a particular aspect of piracy, but now...

 

[MadSinUN]

It is the quote you provided. And in it, there is no mention of a "full-scale multiplayer game", but there is mention of the choice you can make to get involved or not. The point remains, Steam and/or FD make it plain that you have a choice to play along with, or without other players.

Well, if they are so fond of clinging to words and not looking at the essence, I will try to clarify even more.

"If you choose to fly in Open Play you’ll encounter other commanders in a galaxy where friendly fire is always on. Rogue commanders are those pilots who have betrayed the Pilots federation by turning on their own; those pilots can carry huge bounties, making them prime targets for skilled hunters."

The underlined definitions now sufficiently correspond to current realities?
"friendly fire" is active as long as the other player allows it. And the rewards are very different from the definition of " huge."

@Mohrgan
Do you have any constructive ideas for solving this issue? I would very much like to know more.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm talking about " a curtailed open regime bordering on the absurd." What is the significance of the free choice of other modes in this problem?
I'm talking about the fact that nowhere is written about this feature of open mode that so many people are annoyed.

The advertising, on the official page and on Steam makes it clear that playing in Open is optional.

Nowhere does the advertising state that other players can't play the way that they want to even if that way conflicts with the wishes of other players.