The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[TiberiusDuval]

Sure, there will always be GIFTed players, but those are a rare exception. Separate the GIFTed from their preferred “audience,” and such behavior reduces drastically. Try to bribe players into Open? You’re get far more combat loggers, firewall spoofers, and a slew of other GIFT-like behavior than players who actually are fun to play with.

And that is the last thing anyone should ever want.

This one is so on spot. Especially that "fun to play with" part.

 

[SteveWW57]

I find some of the posts in here very educational about online gaming an human psychology.

Steve

 

[Sol Valou]

Since this has been brought up, allow me to give my own take on the Trammel/Feluca split.

For context, I operated a small Tailor/Armorer shop just outside the guard zone of Minoc on the Great Lakes shard (IIRC). I obtained that tiny shop thanks to being an early adopter, and still suffer from tendinitis thanks to refusing to cheat via UO assist and automation. I kept that shop open and stocked through the worst of the PK deprivations.

Following the split, I lucked out during the initial land rush and snagged a similar location on Trammel. The two locations couldn’t be more different. I could charge five times as much on Trammal that I did on Feluca, and still expect to sell out my inventory daily. Feluca did decent enough business, but I saw no point in raising my prices there. The demand simply wasn’t there.

It was fairly easy to stay in stock, though, because I could do all my hunting and mining in Feluca, and expect to be left in peace. Trammel, though? Malicious duel requests were far too frequent for my liking. Those of us who remained in Feluca didn’t need to be bribed to go there. We would’ve gone there regardless, for a host of reasons. My preferred online experience is a mixed PvP/PvE environment, but if I had to choose, I’d rather choose PvE. PvP demands far more time preparing for PvP than I consider fun. But what I find the least fun? “Unsportsmanlike” behavior.

And that’s the rub: there is a cohort of players who are simply not to play with. Let’s call them the GIFTed, after Penny Arcade’s GIFT comic (look it up.). The GIFTed tend to gravitate towards “PvP,” but that’s less about enjoying PvP and more enjoying messing with others, and PvP is much harder to ignore than other methods. The GIFTed’s preferred victims were PvE players, who lacked the time and/or temperament for PvP, and are thus easy to kill.

Those who think players needed to be bribed or forced into Open are missing the point: those who are naturally inclined to be there are there already, and make up a “significant majority” according to Frontier. The minority who remain in Solo/PG are likely to either remain there regardless of the bribe, or more likely quit playing the game entirely.

It’s been know since the late 80’s that there’s an inverse squared relationship between the health of a game/server/mode, and the amount of GIFT-like behavior. A small increase in volume of GIFT-like behavior results in a much larger decrease in the overall player population.

So if GIFT-like behavior is the problem, what’s the solution? I’ve seen a lot of solutions tried over the last 30 years, and they haven’t had much success. The absolute worst IMO is the PvP switch. An ill-timed malignant duel request can wreck your ingame experience just as much as direct player-killing. Draconian Crime & Punishment systems catch the innocent far more often than the guilty. “Hard Core” servers rarely attract enough players to be worthwhile.

The best solution I’ve encountered to date? ED’s tri-mode system. With these most vulnerable to GIFT-like behavior squirreled away in their own private instances, Open is left to those who can safely deal with the GIFTed. This has created an environment that I find is simply fun to play in: just enough player danger to keep the senses sharp without becoming frustrating, and for the most part, any opposition doesn’t act like the south end of a northern-facing hull.

Sure, there will always be GIFTed players, but those are a rare exception. Separate the GIFTed from their preferred “audience,” and such behavior reduces drastically. Try to bribe players into Open? You’re get far more combat loggers, firewall spoofers, and a slew of other GIFT-like behavior than players who actually are fun to play with.

And that is the last thing anyone should ever want.

Thanks for sharing your experience, lots of great points here. Chief of which imo being there are always gifted griefers in any online game whether there is non-consensual pvp enabled or not.

You also pointed out the fact that the "bribe" or incentive by devs to go to Felucca didn't work because those inclined to be there were already present. By and large this is absolutely true but not quite 100%. Doing champion spawns and fighting back the raiders is what got me into pvp in the first place. I'm the minority, sure, but there ya go.

Of the three things I mentioned, the incentive for open is definitely not the most important. Safe zones and a pvp system trump that by a mile. Especially if the majority of players are in fact in open already. Historically the reason it was done was because after the majority of UO players complained enough for the devs to create a safe zone, the murdering reds from the pvp crowd complained they no longer had a reason to play. They were not a small band of players by any means, so not wanting to lose revenue the devs threw them a bone by adding stuff to Felucca. I acknowledge wholeheartedly that its not perfect as folks will always complain/argue against such a thing for one valid reason or another. However in my opinion it was a decent compromise when combined with safe zones and a consensual pvp system.

As far as answering the question of, "Why should one activity be rewarded more than another?" This is already the case in game, is it not? Case in point, mining is no longer the way to make big bucks with exobiology and thargoid spires available. So, on the flipside of this same coin, why should miners be punished for new content being added to the game?

One final point on gankers and a pvp system. Believe it or not, having a pvp system does affect the amount of gankers. For sure, one may argue it's barely noticeable, as the majority of them will continue to enjoy a lack of challenge in their easy targets due to the aforementioned GIFTed phenomenon. However there are some of them that would switch to a pvp system. Especially if that system gives out shiny pixels or otherwise rewards the player more than just killing innocent players.

o7

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Dunno, ED as proper combat game currently has some problems. Fully engineered ships are kind of bullet sponges, making fights between somewhat equal opponents prolonged slugfests. And changing THAT balance, on other hand will anger pretty many people. (I think whole engineering grind gameplay was somewhat stupid idea.)

 

[Screemonster]

Try to bribe players into Open? You’re get far more combat loggers, firewall spoofers, and a slew of other GIFT-like behavior than players who actually are fun to play with.

Yeah, during the peak of my mining piracy days, I ran into a ton of players who logged out the instant I said a direct "hi there" in chat, not even a demand for goods, and my thoughts were essentially "why the hell aren't you playing in solo in the first place if you're going to log out at the sight of another player?"

It's not like I was tooling around in a fer-de-lance or other combat ship to spook them either.

Given the somewhat painstaking process involved in tracking down a miner that I'd successfully instanced with but not actually located, I personally preferred if I hadn't instanced at all to someone that just logged out on me. At least then I wouldn't waste my time hunting them down, yanno?

 

[Screemonster]

Dunno, ED as proper combat game currently has some problems. Fully engineered ships are kind of bullet sponges, making fights between somewhat equal opponents prolonged slugfests. And changing THAT balance, on other hand will anger pretty many people. (I think whole engineering grind gameplay was somewhat stupid idea.)

Personally I think the giant hitpools are what truly enable ganking (as well as leading to crazy powercreep with station guns and ATR and so on).

Bringing health pools down wouldn't make ganking any easier ('cause let's face it, how much engineering does a chamberlain's sidewinder have?) but it'd certainly make gankers more vulnerable to return fire and less able to simply ignore authority ships.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Yeah, during the peak of my mining piracy days, I ran into a ton of players who logged out the instant I said a direct "hi there" in chat, not even a demand for goods, and my thoughts were essentially "why the hell aren't you playing in solo in the first place if you're going to log out at the sight of another player?"

Happened to me also. It was that passanger gold rush thing ferrying refugees to that pretty distant port in some dual star system. I flew a Clipper at that time. And yeah to other commander it might have looked suspicious running just straight behind them and then greeting...especially as Clipper was at that time popular among certain player types...Instant logout from some people I sent chat message

 

[Felix DiCestria]

I've played a couple of MMOs, Griefers are part and parcel of the category. The problem of offering incentives for participating in a PvP that will appeal to PvE players is summed up by this guy on FO76. I don't agree with him on many levels but I understand where he's coming from.

 

[Darrack]

Dunno, ED as proper combat game currently has some problems. Fully engineered ships are kind of bullet sponges, making fights between somewhat equal opponents prolonged slugfests. And changing THAT balance, on other hand will anger pretty many people. (I think whole engineering grind gameplay was somewhat stupid idea.)

Trying to balance PvP in a PVE game never works and always destroys individuality of characters/builds/weapons.
WOW is a perfect example of why the two should never mix.
Something that is useful in PVE can be deemed overpowered in PVP and removed when the PvPers scream the loudest.

O7

 

[Miscellaneous]

Pish posh

This is "the definitive massively multiplayer space epic" thank you very much

 

[Robert Maynard]

Pish posh

This is "the definitive massively multiplayer space epic" thank you very much

.... where other players have always been an optional extra.

 

[varonica]

Or maybe some kind of distress beacon pinging nearby players that you're getting unlawfully pew pew'd? I'm sure that's probably been suggested before.

Given the distances in the game and the short amount of time it takes a murderboat to gank a trader or explorer that entire concept seems to be unworkable. Player gets interdicted and dropped to normal space, ganker burns shields and hull down in 20 seconds, ganker jumps out to nearby system 10 seconds later, 5/10/15 minutes later rescue ships arrive on the scene to help the poor attacked Trader/explorer.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Given the distances in the game and the short amount of time it takes a murderboat to gank a trader or explorer that entire concept seems to be unworkable. Player gets interdicted and dropped to normal space, ganker burns shields and hull down in 20 seconds, ganker jumps out to nearby system 10 seconds later, 5/10/15 minutes later rescue ships arrive on the scene to help the poor attacked Trader/explorer.

Plus if you actually fly gank survivable build you are not going to tarry there trying to fight ganker. You are jumping out. Either way fight is over before others can intervene. Only situation where there is real chance of intervening is when two about equal combat ships slug it out...

 

[Darrack]

Pish posh

This is "the definitive massively multiplayer space epic" thank you very much

Solo mode says otherwise

O7

 

[Darkfyre99]

Or maybe some kind of distress beacon pinging nearby players that you're getting unlawfully pew pew'd? I'm sure that's probably been suggested before.

Given the distances in the game and the short amount of time it takes a murderboat to gank a trader or explorer that entire concept seems to be unworkable. Player gets interdicted and dropped to normal space, ganker burns shields and hull down in 20 seconds, ganker jumps out to nearby system 10 seconds later, 5/10/15 minutes later rescue ships arrive on the scene to help the poor attacked Trader/explorer.

That's always been the problem with the idea of "player police" being a counter to the problem of player-killers: the latter have always had an overwhelming advantage when it comes to initiative. They get to choose the time, the location, the duration, and the odds of their attack. And frequently they get to choose when they "Kal Ort Por" away as well... often via logging out.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's always been the problem with the idea of "player police" being a counter to the problem of player-killers: the latter have always had an overwhelming advantage when it comes to initiative. They get to choose the time, the location, the duration, and the odds of their attack. And frequently they get to choose when they "Kal Ort Por" away as well... often via logging out.

Not only that, but the PKers can quite reasonably claim that they are not targeting specific players whereas any "player police" would need to target specific PKers, which has I believe led to claims of harassment by those targeted.

 

[ethelred]

Just wanted to say I have missed you all and it's great to see some familiar faces having the same arguments.

I look forward to seeing the PP updates and hope that there is some space for more organised PvP being an element of it, but equally won't be surprised if it isn't.

FWIW having a PvP element to PP wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing - it just ofc depends on how Solo and PG are also integrated which is perhaps the design issue they have struggled with for so long.

 

[Darrack]

Just wanted to say I have missed you all and it's great to see some familiar faces having the same arguments.

I look forward to seeing the PP updates and hope that there is some space for more organised PvP being an element of it, but equally won't be surprised if it isn't.

FWIW having a PvP element to PP wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing - it just ofc depends on how Solo and PG are also integrated which is perhaps the design issue they have struggled with for so long.

As someone who has no interest in PvP in Elite i do hope PP 2.0 brings some for those that want it, just so long as it doesn't penalise those of us in Solo or give an unfair advantage.

O7

 

[Rebel Yell]

Dunno, ED as proper combat game currently has some problems. Fully engineered ships are kind of bullet sponges, making fights between somewhat equal opponents prolonged slugfests. And changing THAT balance, on other hand will anger pretty many people. (I think whole engineering grind gameplay was somewhat stupid idea.)

Equal opponents / ships = skill, ship management, flight model control etc makes the difference... and the "bullet sponge" is way relative to the specific build types.

 

[Rebel Yell]

FWIW having a PvP element to PP wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing - it just ofc depends on how Solo and PG are also integrated which is perhaps the design issue they have struggled with for so long.

I hope no more PP for Solo/PG, no one will miss them.