Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

[Simi Kusoni]

To all those people who are encouraging open play: +1 to you!

I have watched to open/pvp closed/pve debate with mild interest and have generally played closed games. Why? Because I have more than done my share of pvp over the years and... well... as the years have gone by I have seen more and more cheating and griefing... and the attitude of such players is positively offensive.

[For the avoidance of doubt I know for a fact that people did not used to cheat because the only multiplayer stuff was at LAN parties and you could literally look at their monitors over their shoulders - Yes, I am that old. But I digress...]

My point is that I now have enough cash under my belt so it is not a catastrophe if I die and I will be playing more in open... But beware, I will frequently be in a wing and you pull one of us you pull us all

One issue is they can see if you're in a wing, so you can't even bait griefers

But yes, the prevalence of hacks and cheaters in modern gaming is rather depressing, I miss the good old days with UT LAN parties and the like. Going with P2P and not bundling any form of anti-cheat (or incorporating it into the client) was kind of asking for trouble on FD's part though, from what I've seen modifying certain things like shield strength and damage isn't even difficult and there seems to be no detection for it going on at all.

As for swapping to open, I hope you have fun! But personally I'm starting to find it a little boring already, I greatly prefer it when I have something to fight for rather than fighting for the sake of fighting.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Making money in solo mode is no easier or different to open... unless you are saying that player pirates make a difference. The former means that solo players are doing no harm. The latter means you are trying to impose PVP game play whether people want it or not. Either way, live and let live; let them choose what they want to do because it does not impact on you.

Personally I find games boring without any risk, which is how it stands at the moment both for pirates and traders alike.

Traders can horde their credits in solo and switch to open for consensual PvP, pirates can do whatever they want and insurance renders ship losses meaningless for them. Given the game design it seems to me ED are going for a sandbox style game, but have failed to incorporate some of the core concepts (or in some instances incorporated them poorly).

Given the current state of the game players will reach "end game" levels of currency in very short amounts of time, and then run out of things to do.

 

[Egan]

You are actually wrong, it has all about beeing afraid. Afraid of being shot down and haveing to start all over again... But like you said, some people wants to play the game as it is supposed to be played, and some want's to sheat. Players in Solo and Group play is sheating.

As in other singelplayer games, some players like to use sheat codes to get every thing in the game right away.. where is the fun of that? And in this game, some people want's to play in the solo or group to build them selves up safe from other players, and then.. when they finaly get the biggest an thoughest ship with its utility and weapons, then they enter the arena. I call it sheating.

And lets face it, some people like to sheat. But that is not the same as we should let them sheat... so therefor FD should close down Solo and Group play so we get more people in the multiplayer, and so there is not possible for sheaters to sheat. At least make sure that the sheaters do not get to use their sheating ships in the open world.

Wow, You have got be be sheating me.

I play solo for a variety of reason (none of which are any ones business but mine) suffice to say, Some of us really actually positively don't find the social aspect of computer games terribly exciting or important. But if you want to accuse people of cheating go right ahead.

 

[Derath]

Its appealing to people who want to play with other players, what more do you want? If you make it more appealing via external means you aren't actually fixing the problem your using bait to lure people into a situation they don't actually want to be in, I don't want extra rage quitters / combat loggers that came to open because of some incentive I want living players who are there trying to make their way in a dark universe that has competent pilots in it instead of AI waffle.

 

[Kondensat]

op seems to be a bit paranoid
every player wants to kill him.....

if there is so much fear involved, OP might be better stay in solo
dont think ED open is very healthy for him then.

imagine the headline:
"ED killed player by heart attack"

 

[Scimiter]

OP is definitley paranoid, there is nothing to fear in "OPEN" play for a trader as long as he stays away from Sol, Leesti, Lava etc etc.
I have been interdicted once by a human pirate since January 1015 and escaped unharmed.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

With the new comms system, you will find just saying hello to a player can avoid a conflict. Having said that, I said hello to CMDR Malcolm Geordie in his Type 6, and he politely told me to F..k Off!, and logged in fear. Remember traders can meet in starports along the rares routes, and group up to protect each other. The trade dividends are also now an incentive for escorts to join your wing and keep you safe. Don't look to FD to create these things, you can do it by communicating with other players. I used to play in solo, never again, it is nowhere near as much fun. There is a reward, it just cannot be measured in credits or faction reputaion...

 

[Varrag]

You are actually wrong, it has all about beeing afraid. Afraid of being shot down and haveing to start all over again... But like you said, some people wants to play the game as it is supposed to be played, and some want's to sheat. Players in Solo and Group play is sheating.

As in other singelplayer games, some players like to use sheat codes to get every thing in the game right away.. where is the fun of that? And in this game, some people want's to play in the solo or group to build them selves up safe from other players, and then.. when they finaly get the biggest an thoughest ship with its utility and weapons, then they enter the arena. I call it sheating.

And lets face it, some people like to sheat. But that is not the same as we should let them sheat... so therefor FD should close down Solo and Group play so we get more people in the multiplayer, and so there is not possible for sheaters to sheat. At least make sure that the sheaters do not get to use their sheating ships in the open world.

Sigh. Grow up mate, this game is supposed to be played any way you like, that's one of its strongest selling points. Ditching offline was bad enough, so can't we just stop with this already...?

Also:

Spoiler

 

[Dagless]

Play in solo because computer games are something I like to do when I can 't be bothered with human interaction.

When I want to engage with people, I visit friends, go to the pub, play games in the park or something.

If I want to blow stuff up in space, I prefer to do it alone. And I don't have to worry about messing up anyone else's evening no matter what I do. Or so I thought. But apparently some people seem to be all upset I may be cheating.

 

[CMDR GWALCH]

The current system of open/private/solo is perfection!

I'm the type of player that enjoys playing games where spontaneous pvp can happen it adds to the excitement.
Some of my friends simply cannot enjoy the game in open play, they're great people but bad experiences have made them apprehensive.

Last night I managed to convince one of them to come into open play reassuring him he wouldn't be "griefed". We jumped into a zone with 3 other commanders we didnt know and started killing pirates. After 5 mins my friend clipped a ISS vulture and became wanted for 200 credits. I watched 3 of the commanders approach him. Two of them veered off obviously not interested in killing my friend for 200 credits. One guy in an asp however decided to open up on my friend with everything he had. Anyway I dropped the Asp to 50% hull before he broke off his attack on my friend and no one got blown up.

My friend was quite shaken by this and asked if I'd be cool to join him on private. I was totally fine with this but I think without that option he probably would have logged off in a bad mood.

I have a brother who I know will really enjoy this game but has no interest in open play at all.

I feel the current system makes the game approachable to all types of players.

 

[Simi Kusoni]

Play in solo because computer games are something I like to do when I can 't be bothered with human interaction.

When I want to engage with people, I visit friends, go to the pub, play games in the park or something.

If I want to blow stuff up in space, I prefer to do it alone. And I don't have to worry about messing up anyone else's evening no matter what I do. Or so I thought. But apparently some people seem to be all upset I may be cheating.

I think that's just one guy: most of us have no issue with solo play, other than the fact that you can transfer assets seamlessly between solo and open.

Know those evil griefers everyone keeps moaning about? Guess how they got their credits? Trading and mission running in solo play. Then they buy combat ships and go griefing in open, because they aren't fighting "for" anything, they aren't trying to pirate your cargo, they're just griefers who have the capacity to trade and play the game in safety before switching over to open.

Its appealing to people who want to play with other players, what more do you want? If you make it more appealing via external means you aren't actually fixing the problem your using bait to lure people into a situation they don't actually want to be in, I don't want extra rage quitters / combat loggers that came to open because of some incentive I want living players who are there trying to make their way in a dark universe that has competent pilots in it instead of AI waffle.

This is essentially my position, the choice between solo and open should exist but those that wish to play in open should need to gain their credits in open first. However things like combat escorts on trade routes, or genuine fights over control of trade routes/camping spots, won't exist so long as people can seamlessly switch modes whenever they want to make money.

There are also other issues, like the lack of risk for pirates as the insurance is IMHO a little too generous, but with some much needed balancing this could be a good game. As it stands I think the churn rate on players will be too high as they rapidly reach end game without major losses or set backs, and the influx of new players will rapidly decrease over time. Chances are if this is correct space will become very, very empty within a year or so of release.

 

[Wyke]

OP is definitley paranoid, there is nothing to fear in "OPEN" play for a trader as long as he stays away from Sol, Leesti, Lava etc etc.
I have been interdicted once by a human pirate since January 1015 and escaped unharmed.https://forums.frontier.co.uk/images/icons/vbposticons/icon10.gif

Of course I am paranoid 13 years of Eve is enough to make anybody paranoid!

 

[ViciousMink]

Of course I am paranoid 13 years of Eve is enough to make anybody paranoid!

Ain't that the truth.... =)

 

[Simi Kusoni]

13 years of Eve

May the gods have mercy on your soul.

 

[DogTailRed2]

There is nothing particularly dangerous playing open (I always play open as I like the chance of danger) but you have to be realistic.
Unarmed ships face dangers from anyone they encounter. If you don't like the danger fly something more capable.
Be more situationally aware and stay out of trouble.

However the original question `should open be more appealing to non combatants` I say hell yes. There should be far more
content for all role types. Unfortunatey combat seems to be the only fun one at the moment.

 

[DarkWalker]

Surely if your client is blocking all connections with other clients, but still connected to ED's server, then this is ridiculously easy to detect?

Kinda. The server can know there is some issue between two players, but without further diagnosis it's not that easy telling where the issue is, or even if it's an issue with either of them; their ISPs might just have some routing issues.

And even if they do detect who has blocked P2P, they can't do anything because accidentally blocking P2P traffic is very easy, and in some cases it's recommended for security reasons. To the point you often see players asking for help in peer to peer game forums because they can't see anyone else; those players typically didn't try to block their own connection.

Failing that as you said the game automatically detects bad connections, blocking p2p connections is probably going to get you dumped back into solo play anyway.

Which is perfectly fine when solo and open use the same save and background galaxy simulation (as is the case now, bad connection gets you effectively dropped to solo), but utterly unacceptable if it would prevent the player from accessing his save.

No one is claiming that they should move away from P2P, it's too late for that, but lets not pretend latency was the primary motivation for going P2P rather than reducing the costs of server infrastructure. As you said five minutes with google, whilst not showing up a firewall hack for me, does show trivial to implement methods for boosting shields/damage by modifying game memory.

There is a big difference between tweaking the firewall or router and actually modifying game memory.

This is somewhat beside the point however, actual hackers are for the most part a niche issue, the way this game is designed that renders all multi-player elements redundant is a larger problem when it comes to longevity. Even in open mode player interaction is limited, so I will stand by my point that this is a single player game with MP elements tacked on.

Oh, I agree that it's a single player game with MP elements tacked on. The difference is that I've always seen it as that; after all, players being able to just opt out of seeing anyone else, or to limit who they see to just a known group of other players, was central to the multiplayer aspect since as early as the Kickstart. What's more, I see forcing all players into a more traditional MMO framework as detrimental, something that could in the end ruin the game.

In other words, I don't want, and never wanted, a MMO. In fact, what I wanted was the offline single player mode Frontier started advertising during Kickstart and then cut out barely a month before launch. In its absence, I will be fighting for preserving the options that make this game still feel like a single player experience for those players that don't care about that multiplayer crud we were stuck with, and for never making anything extraneous that makes players in solo feel like they are getting the short end of the stick — such as this thread's proposals to make open more enticing.

Frontier made sure to include language in their advertisement to attract this kind of player, so now they can't simply ditch the players that don't want a traditional MMO.

 

[kushan]

Good read OP.
I must admit that I started in solo mode, but once I'd built up a decent credit reserve I went into Open mode. Most of it was fairly friendly, the occasional hair-raising moment when some lunatic comes out of the docking port at full speed in a type 9 - but seemed fairly friendly.
Then I got interdicted by someone in a 'Conda - I sat there, thinking he would issue a demand of some sort. Nope! he opened up and outright destroyed me, my type 6 and its 100-ton cargo of Palladium destroyed.

Stay in Solo now, cant see any incentive to playing in Open, since I don't particularly fancy being the "sport" of some credit-rich guy with nothing better to do.

 

[Simi Kusoni]

Kinda. The server can know there is some issue between two players, but without further diagnosis it's not that easy telling where the issue is, or even if it's an issue with either of them; their ISPs might just have some routing issues.

And even if they do detect who has blocked P2P, they can't do anything because accidentally blocking P2P traffic is very easy, and in some cases it's recommended for security reasons. To the point you often see players asking for help in peer to peer game forums because they can't see anyone else; those players typically didn't try to block their own connection.

It wouldn't be too difficult to flag users who frequently switch between being connectable and being reported as unconnectable, they are already beginning to ban players using trading hacks so I presume they already have the procedures in place to review and act on accounts that have been flagged in this way.

Which is perfectly fine when solo and open use the same save and background galaxy simulation (as is the case now, bad connection gets you effectively dropped to solo), but utterly unacceptable if it would prevent the player from accessing his save.

There is a big difference between tweaking the firewall or router and actually modifying game memory.

It depends on what you are going for, if their intent is purely to block all connections to other clients you could probably do this relatively easily. But if you just want to block a connection to, for example, the person interdicting you you'd likely need to find a way to pull that specific client IP from the game's memory so you can block the connection.

I was also mostly referencing it as an inherent weakness in the P2P model, one that FD should have anticipated. I'm assuming they did predict this, which leaves me confused as to why there is very little detection going on. If you are storing anything important client-side you should always consider it compromised and put methods in place to detect modifications made to it, or obfuscate the code to the extent that it becomes extremely difficult to modify safely.

As for dropping people to solo, if they used different saves it wouldn't be too hard to create a shadow-solo mode that kicks in solely during connection trouble. Preferably with a warning to the client and a time limit on how long you can remain unconnectable before being disconnected. At that point as long as you're connected to ED's server it could save the game for you.

Oh, I agree that it's a single player game with MP elements tacked on. The difference is that I've always seen it as that; after all, players being able to just opt out of seeing anyone else, or to limit who they see to just a known group of other players, was central to the multiplayer aspect since as early as the Kickstart. What's more, I see forcing all players into a more traditional MMO framework as detrimental, something that could in the end ruin the game.

In other words, I don't want, and never wanted, a MMO. In fact, what I wanted was the offline single player mode Frontier started advertising during Kickstart and then cut out barely a month before launch. In its absence, I will be fighting for preserving the options that make this game still feel like a single player experience for those players that don't care about that multiplayer crud we were stuck with, and for never making anything extraneous that makes players in solo feel like they are getting the short end of the stick — such as this thread's proposals to make open more enticing.

Frontier made sure to include language in their advertisement to attract this kind of player, so now they can't simply ditch the players that don't want a traditional MMO.

Surely by this logic you would be happy with solo mode even if you couldn't transfer assets to open?

 

[Sacksquatch]

I used to really love pvp. Loved the thrill and the challenge. I don't dig it at all anymore. In fact I avoid multiplayer games nowadays, period. I guess I've just had my fill. It's too easy for idiots to "download some skills" with all the hacks and memory injectors etc. Plus their personalities have seriously declined in the last decade or two. There used to be more respect going around in years past. Now it seems to be about trolling, lol u mad bro? I miss the days where my opponent would say "Good Fight" and actually mean it and even teach me a move he did if I asked nicely. I kept bouncing from game to game trying to recapture that feeling of competition and mutual respect I found in first generation MMOs, but it just isn't there anymore to be found.

There is nothing FD could do to get more people to play Open. Not unless they can figure out how to patch the human race. I know there are some really good people out there and I'm not aiming this at you, but you know what I'm talking about.

 

[TwistedHelix]

Also not knocking solo at all, if that's your play style then that's fine too. I'm glad we have the option to swap between them.

If you decide to trade then you are a business man (I dont just trade ... I happen to like exploring, but then it doesnt matter what mode you are in). If you run the risk of loosing your ship and hold full of cargo to some random players (and let me just say it wasn't so bad when it was just one person interdicting you ... then you had a fighting or fleeing chance ... but when 4 decide to gank you its game over) ... then that makes a trade run a bad business decision, compared to making the same trade run without that risk. Its a simple matter of the bottom line ... which is what trading is about.

Sure you can form a trading "company" with others ... some flying protection, split the profits ... I suppose that adds realism. But depending on the times you play and who you know, this option is not open to everyone. Its feels a little like open play is going to become a gang culture now with wings, if you are not part of a gang then space is a dangerous place. Thats fair enough, but it is going to divide the solo players from the gang players and the choice of what mode to play in for each one becomes a no brainer. I think I liked it a bit more in open when there was more variety between playing styles ... I have met some lovely pirates, rob you with a smile and a bit of banter ... but loosing a ship and a whole cargo hold to murderers (dare I say griefers) is simply not financial sense. However its early days yet ... we will have to see how the dynamics develop.

 

[DarkWalker]

It wouldn't be too difficult to flag users who frequently switch between being connectable and being reported as unconnectable, they are already beginning to ban players using trading hacks so I presume they already have the procedures in place to review and act on accounts that have been flagged in this way.

It wouldn't be reliable. Suppose your ISP has a persistent routing issue with another specific ISP; every time you would be put in the same instance as a player from that ISP, you would be "reported" in the game as unconnectable, without even noticing something was amiss.

It depends on what you are going for, if their intent is purely to block all connections to other clients you could probably do this relatively easily. But if you just want to block a connection to, for example, the person interdicting you you'd likely need to find a way to pull that specific client IP from the game's memory so you can block the connection.

Blocking everyone is enough most of the time. And you don't need to look in the game's memory to get the IP address anyway; if you want proof, open a command prompt and type "netstat" without quotation marks.

I was also mostly referencing it as an inherent weakness in the P2P model, one that FD should have anticipated. I'm assuming they did predict this, which leaves me confused as to why there is very little detection going on. If you are storing anything important client-side you should always consider it compromised and put methods in place to detect modifications made to it, or obfuscate the code to the extent that it becomes extremely difficult to modify safely.

Well, given that Frontier always intended for players to be able to just avoid each other freely and without hassle — as seems to be the case, judging by all that the devs said about how they want to keep the current ability to freely switch modes — the possibility to block others in open due to the P2P architecture was never a weakness for them. Heck, even for the players, why bother with some cumbersome tweak that can block other peer to peer programs (such as Skype or Bittorrent) when it's easier to just switch to solo mode?

As for dropping people to solo, if they used different saves it wouldn't be too hard to create a shadow-solo mode that kicks in solely during connection trouble. Preferably with a warning to the client and a time limit on how long you can remain unconnectable before being disconnected. At that point as long as you're connected to ED's server it could save the game for you.

Which means players could stay in that mode effectively eternally, only getting connected again to refresh the timer when in a safe place.

Surely by this logic you would be happy with solo mode even if you couldn't transfer assets to open?

If the game was completely offline, with no internet connection required at all, then I could agree.

With an internet connection required, though, nope. If I'm already being forced to stay connected at all times then I want to be able to play with anyone I please using a single save. I'm not going to just get all the disadvantages of online play shoved down my throat without any of the advantages just so players like you can have more fish to shoot at.