The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[heathenlamb]

but I think it's a shame everyone feels they have to hide away in silos. Which I quite appreciate comes from fear of ganking,

lol ... it has NOTHING to do with fear of ganking or "hiding" from Open ... some of us just don't want to interact with other players in game ... full stop. I personally find the larger portion of other humans, online or in mulitplayer games, to be entirely insufferable ... so I simply don't expose myself to it.

My ED play time is 100% me time ... time to unwind and wander around the black gettting into mischief .... far removed from the outside world.

 

[SergMx]

As players can communicate in game and decide, based on those communications, whether to play in a designated Private Group it seems clear that there is no requirement for out-of-game interaction to identify a Private Group to play in, while acknowledging that it may occur.

I'm sorry, but my translation makes it sound like the ganker's begging me not to shoot him

You can spend hours begging someone to let YOU into their group and it's not a given that it will happen. You can't count this as a 100% game mode.

 

[Rebel Yell]

[...] some of us just don't want to interact with other players in game ... full stop. [...]

...but then don't want to interact with other players' belongings as well.

LMAO

 

[heathenlamb]

LMAO

I mean ... .... ..... ... you're not wrong

 

[Brrokk]

lol ... it has NOTHING to do with fear of ganking or "hiding" from Open ... some of us just don't want to interact with other players in game ... full stop. I personally find the larger portion of other humans, online or in mulitplayer games, to be entirely insufferable ... so I simply don't expose myself to it.

My ED play time is 100% me time ... time to unwind and wander around the black gettting into mischief .... far removed from the outside world.

The hiding thing is entirely subjective. If I play in Open, friends in Mobius could equally well say I was hiding from them.

It's all just instancing and player choices about it.

 

[SergMx]

It's all just instancing and player choices about it.

You can choose to play in single player mode or open game, it's your choice.

Playing PG is not only your choice, a third party must allow you to do so.

 

[Brrokk]

You can choose to play in single player mode or open game, it's your choice.

Playing PG is not only your choice, a third party must allow you to do so.

OK. I'd prefer to say, "PG is a choice you make in agreement with other players".

 

[Robert Maynard]

OK. I'd prefer to say, "PG is a choice you make in agreement with other players".

Indeed - it's a game mode where all of the players agree to play in it, and no player can be forced to play in it.

 

[SergMx]

Indeed - it's a game mode where all of the players agree to play in it, and no player can be forced to play in it.

I agree. But why is it viewed from this side? I would prefer this wording: Other players may or may not allow YOU to play this mode regardless of your desire.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree. But why is it viewed from this side? I would prefer this wording: Other players may or may not allow YOU to play this mode regardless of your desire.

Yes, and no, i.e.:

Every player can create a Private Group of their own - so no player can stop a player from playing in all Private Groups.

Players can, of course, be denied access to, and therefore be unable to play in, another player's Private Group.

 

[Brrokk]

I agree. But why is it viewed from this side? I would prefer this wording: Other players may or may not allow YOU to play this mode regardless of your desire.

Yes, and no, i.e.:

Every player can create a Private Group of their own - so no player can stop a player from playing in all Private Groups.

Players can, of course, be denied access to, and therefore be unable to play in, another player's Private Group.

Crumbs, isn't all this well known?

 

[Darrack]

Other players may or may not allow YOU to play this mode regardless of your desire.

You don't need to, I play on Mobius, yes i signed up to say i agree to the rules, but i also have my own PG with a few friends where anything goes.
The best thing is we can play in either of these modes and still effect the galaxy.
Anyone can create a PG just like anyone can play Solo or Open if they wish, its pretty much Win Win Win.

O7

 

[SergMx]

You don't need to, I play on Mobius, yes i signed up to say i agree to the rules, but i also have my own PG with a few friends where anything goes.
The best thing is we can play in either of these modes and still effect the galaxy.
Anyone can create a PG just like anyone can play Solo or Open if they wish, its pretty much Win Win Win.

O7

Anyone can create a PG, but as written above they can't force anyone to play there, and it will essentially be a single player mode.

I just don't quite understand why the PG mode is being passed off as a full game mode, which essentially depends on a third party.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I just don't quite understand why the PG mode is being passed off as a full game mode, which essentially depends on a third party.

Private Groups allow, but do not force, players to choose to play in a multi-player game mode without needing to play in Open. Up to 20,000 players can be a member of each Private Group - allowing whole communities of players to have somewhere to play together without being bothered by those not in their community.

 

[Brrokk]

Anyone can create a PG, but as written above they can't force anyone to play there, and it will essentially be a single player mode.

I just don't quite understand why the PG mode is being passed off as a full game mode, which essentially depends on a third party.

Maybe we're not quite on the same subject.

I call PG a mode: in three modes you can play on your own, with friends or with all other players. I think this is neat game design.

However, if your concern is a huge PG like Mobius being "passed off" as a PvE mode, I agree. It's not a great substitute for the obvious missing mode, and I think FD have been lazy and cheap allowing it to fill the role of a proper mode.

 

[Bigmaec]

PG is the mode for people to enjoy cooperative play without people trying to blow you up. It's fine.

 

[SergMx]

PG is the mode for people to enjoy cooperative play without people trying to blow you up. It's fine.

And where the owner of the group can kick you out of the group without explaining why.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And where the owner of the group can kick you out of the group without explaining why.

Indeed - is there a perceived problem with the PG owner having the final say on any player's membership of their PG?

 

[SergMx]

PG is the mode for people to enjoy cooperative play without people trying to blow you up. It's fine.

And by the way, what makes you think it will stop anyone from doing a gank if they want to?

You can always make the first gank, you can get kicked out of the group. In an open game you can be blacklisted. There's essentially no difference.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

And by the way, what makes you think it will stop anyone from doing a gank if they want to?

You can always make the first gank, you can get kicked out of the group. In an open game you can be blacklisted. There's essentially no difference.

I usually hate that argument, but I am going to make it anyway: Blocking a player influences instancing, even for third parties. Kicking a player from a closed group does not.