The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

They are not my leaders and having spoken to a few its clear they are just set on one course doing deals with whoever, not my idea of PP.
Luckily we have Solo and PG so its really a non issue.
But to be honest this is a discussion for elsewhere.

O7

You could have just answered "I don't care about other people's work as long as I get my kicks". Total griefer mentality . Actually, whether it's well-meaning and unwitting or malicious, the ability of a relatively small group of CMDRs to sabotage the fortunes of a power, and the way that the system is weighted in various ways to make this the likely outcome of activity that isn't carefully guided, is the biggest problem with powerplay. So much so that all the powers have an out-of-game agreement to prevent it. Although the fault lies fundamentally with FDev's design. Rubbernuke devised a replacement system where all actions are automatically neutral or positive to the pledged power.

And it doesn't matter what mode you're in, you are still likely wasting their time and yours if you go against the grain. It's not that I don't like the idea of intra-faction push and pull, it's just that design flaws make it wholly counterproductive for a power in the current system. Being in solo just means you waste more of everyone's time.

And the fact that what you're potentially talking about is effectively ganking a whole power, and the fact that doing it in solo instead of open (check the thread title) is like a ganker with an invulnerability hack, makes your suggestion that "this is a discussion for elsewhere" a nonsense.

 

[Darrack]

And the fact that what you're potentially talking about is effectively ganking a whole power

I think you vastly overestimate the size of my group
PP isnt difficult to work out, its not rocket surgery, trust me we don't make any waves or hinder Utopia in any way, we are mainly a fortification group.

the fact that doing it in solo instead of open

If all PP was forced into Open it would be unbalanced in its current form, Large groups would simply blockade/gank smaller groups and soloers, no thanks im happy having fun in solo or PG with a few friends enjoying life.

O7

 

[Rebel Yell]

If all PP was forced into Open it would be unbalanced in its current form, Large groups would simply blockade/gank smaller groups and soloers, no thanks im happy having fun in solo or PG with a few friends enjoying life.

...or some large groups will not be as large anymore

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I think you vastly overestimate the size of my group
PP isnt difficult to work out, its not rocket surgery, trust me we don't make any waves or hinder Utopia in any way, we are mainly a fortification group.

Yes I'm perhaps being more general that "a group" can do a lot of damage. And you don't seem malicious. But you say you don't hinder Utopia. What if the main group want the power to undergo a controlled turmoil in order to shed loss-making control systems (that may have been acquired through malicious or unintentional sabotage) and improve the power's economy, requiring as near as possible complete control over fortification, do you take the lead from that group? Or would you be a spanner in the works insisting on fortifying everything you can, preventing the beneficial turmoil and leaving Utopia in its erstwhile weaker, more vulnersble state?

What if Utopia is attacked and goes into turmoil, and needs to control where gets fortified in order to make sure that the least profitable systems are lost, and the most profitable systems are protected, so that the turmoil doesn't deepen?

Speaking of loss-making systems, do you consult with the main group when voting, to ensure that you don't assist a sabotage prep from going to expansion (which may be very difficult to oppose due to trigger asymmetry, and nigh impossible to lose afterwards)? Don't get me wrong, all powers have to deal with random fortifying and voting (although it generates work), and you may be in the noise, but I'm trying to see if you understand the implications of what you're doing.

"It's not rocket surgery, trust me bro". Did you know that the powerplay UI frequently displays numbers that are outright wrong due to ancient bugs that were never fixed, and sometimes egregiously misleading? And a whole bunch of other stuff you probably don't know if you're isolationist and not willing to learn from the experts in established groups.

If all PP was forced into Open it would be unbalanced in its current form, Large groups would simply blockade/gank smaller groups and soloers, no thanks im happy having fun in solo or PG with a few friends enjoying life.

O7

Well, either you're helping your power, in which case you are part of a large group (since a relatively narrow set of actions are beneficial in any given week), or you're doing random stuff that randomly conflicts with that - which is it?

And you perfectly highlight the existing nasty imbalance in the game. In open, powerplayers can be blockaded, frequently making it difficult to complete their task, in solo/PG they cannot, making it easy. This incentivises the use of closed modes, regardless of what you enjoy, and penalises playstyles that emphasise open play. Why is the choice of modes a biased one, instead of a free choice? What would you do to fix it?

 

[Darrack]

Did you know that the powerplay UI frequently displays numbers that are outright wrong due to ancient bugs that were never fixed, and sometimes egregiously misleading? And a whole bunch of other stuff you probably don't know if you're isolationist and not willing to learn from the experts in established groups.

Yup ive done my research and frequently listen to folks like Rebel and Rubber as even though i don't agree with many view points i bow to their knowledge.
Much like a respect your advice.

O7

 

[Robert Maynard]

Results did not surprise me: "You are 93% Explorer" "60% Socialiser 33% Achiever 13% Killer"

Nor me: EASK, 73%/73%/53%/0%.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Yup ive done my research and frequently listen to folks like Rebel and Rubber as even though i don't agree with many view points i bow to their knowledge.
Much like a respect your advice.

O7

I can tell you're bored of this conversation that I'm bashing you over the head with. I made my points anyway, although you didn't answer the rest hopefully some of it gave you food for thought and an appreciation of why, as much as we all want to be free to do what we like, a lot of things can only be achieved by disciplined pursuit of a common plan. Powerplay is like that unless it's treated as a roleplay with no strategic gameplay. It becomes self-evident to those in the larger groups. The remainder I suspect you just don't have an answer for . And perhaps in truth don't care. As for forum peeps, they can give general knowledge but only a power's leadership can construct the menu du jour for that power and have the "local" insight. Edit - and that stuff is close to the chest since other powers can exploit it if revealed.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

ESKA - 73/60/40/27. I was a little surprised by the 40K. I feel like it came from responses where the other option was uninteresting to me, rather than particular enthusiasm for the option I chose.

 

[SteveWW57]

SEAK 80/60/53/7

Happy with the Socialiser score.

I did feel that some of the choices were bad and less bad. Never mind.

Steve

 

[CMDR The Riz]

Well, it surprised me:

• Explorer: 73%
• Achiever: 53%
• Killer: 40%
• Socializer: 33%

Considering that I'm almost exclusively a combat player, I've done (almost) nothing but explode all the Federal Settlements in Minun since April and racked up quite the score for crime:

I'm taken aback, possibly even a bit insulted that I only scored 40% in the killer category - insulted, I tell you!

I guess it was questions like this that didn't have a "yes" or "neither" option that skewed the results:

...seeing as I both tend to dive down into obscure game mechanics to help me (over)analyze potential ship and suit builds for the sole purpose of exploding all the things (while sometimes finding bugs with how the game operates... Bullet Magnetism ) and run around with loadouts no sane player would:

 

[Riverside]

Worth a read to better understand the player types Bartle defines and how they interact:

Richard A. Bartle: Players Who Suit MUDs

 

[Julissa Silver]

In a shock to no-one:

80% Explorer/80% Socialiser/40% Achiever/0% Killer​

 

[Felix DiCestria]

ESAK which is surprising.

Tbh those options were quite binary and a lot of them I could have answered "neither"

In my mind when I play I'm Han Solo ofc. (Maybe Barry Hercules)

I differ from @TiberiusDuval in that I want a player threat in game, so I can thwart them.

I like a good thwarting.

EASK myself and could answer neither to most of the questions.
100% Explorer, 53% Achiever, 47% socializer, 0% killer.

 

[varonica]

Yeah I got 93% explorer, but I really wouldn't have answered most of the other questions at all because they make no sense according to my play style, so the other percentages are irrelevant.

 

[Hellfire85]

Oh boy... This topic is still a thing? Years of back and forth and ppl are still going on about Open vs other modes?
Just remove solo and groups already, we all know the game would be better off in Open Only!

 

[Darrack]

Oh boy... This topic is still a thing? Years of back and forth and ppl are still going on about Open vs other modes?
Just remove solo and groups already, we all know the game would be better off Dead in Open Only!

There corrected your typo

O7

 

[Hellfire85]

There corrected your typo

O7

Lol
But tbh, the way things are, and have always been, interaction between CMDRs in any kind of scenario are heavily hampered due to mode switching. Take powerplay or system BGS as an example.
People can simply jump to group or solo to work the BGS, basically impeding other CMDR's progression without any care in the world to be oposed. Same goes for CGs, community goals, "Defend this and that" or "Bring this to there", "hinder this to get there" kinda things, become meaningless words because there's no real risky encounters nor real interaction between the actual community.
Game seems dead because of the fact we now have ED: beyond with all modes alongside ED: Odyssey with all modes ultimately separating the community even further than before.
Uniting everyone under the same mode would give a lot of more meaning to teams, squadrons, defense groups, bounty hunters etc.
But I've been saying that for years, alongside many other players, those words never reach anyone who needs to read them.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

maybe they reach them and they reject them? Just an idea. Insert the usual "BGS is asymmetrical PvP" explanation.

 

[TobiasFuzz]

Lol
[...] or system BGS as an example.

Whoever play the BGS by attacking opposing Cmdrs will loose. This is not a valid example. By the way, there is the PG option for players who want to do PvP, open is for coop activity.

 

[SteveWW57]

Uniting everyone under the same mode would give a lot of more meaning to teams, squadrons, defense groups, bounty hunters etc.
But I've been saying that for years, alongside many other players, those words never reach anyone who needs to read them.

Riddle me this.
Between a PvE only mode and a PvP only mode, which would have the more players?

Given the numbers according to the official stats of who gets involved in PvP, then I guess that PvE only would be the place where most people be and that the PvP only mode would be emptyish and unsatisfying place to be?

Steve