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

[Rune]

Again with the molesting. We have plenty of PvP and PvE players, thanks. That's the point. Goal scoring is taking only PvE grinding into account. And you can grind best when you're either by yourself or safe in the knowledge that your fellow group members won't bother you and interrupt you. Thus, whichever side has most solo players will likely win.

And yeah thanks, but I won't be coming over to your PvE lala land because it's boring. I prefer to play my own mode. Hey, just like you! Fancy that.

You'd be singing a different tune if the shoe was on the other foot.

Personally I couldn't care less about being in the top 5%, I'm not a competitive player so as far as I'm concerned others can get worked up about scores in a video game whist I relax and enjoy myself. So if they had a community goal that benefited open then go for it, I wouldn't complain one iota. I don't see how you can call it unfair when you have access to the same modes so it's by your own choice if you don't take the route that is most advantageous towards your goals.

Also end of the day it's not solo/private group/open that gives the most advantage or disadvantage towards reaching the top in community goals, it's employment status. Those who are retired, unemployed or on a long holiday while a community goal is going on have the biggest advantage as they can play the game as much as they want and spend all their time working towards the community goal. I have maybe 5-10 hours a week to spend on playing the game but I don't go round saying how it's unfair and the game should be balanced towards those of us who don't have as much time to play.

 

[Mephane]

Given that similar goodies have already been given exclusively to open players (see entry at Race to Elite) without a peep from the other two modes, you don't have a leg to stand on. Solo and Group players were excluded from the race, yet even told one another that if they wanted a shot at the brass ring to go play open. For all the whining about solo and groups, not a word has been mentioned that the ONLY exclusive content was given to open players.

- The race to Elite is not game content, it is an out-of-game post-facto measurement of player progress speed for the few that wish to do it.
- The number of people who would ever realistically have had a chance at getting any of the prizes is so vanishingly small that of course there is basically no one who would complain about the "open only" limitation on the competititon.
- Had FD not made the race "open only", that on the other hand would have produced a minor biowastestorm even among players who wouldn't be able to compete for one of the prizes anyway, because there is a very vocal crowd of players who want their open mode as the one and only true gameplay mode and look down upon everyone who ever dares to use Solo or Private Group.
- Sadly, but not unsurprisingly, that same crowd now uses that competition as "proof" that their game mode were somehow superior and "truer".

 

[Robert Maynard]

As long as the PvP element and solo element are balanced, that is not an issue. Even if XBox users have their own Open and Solo modes, the principles remain the same.

I see a lot of people bringing about instances into this - instances are not an issue. The fact that you can be far more effective without player interference in solo is. There are multiple way to balance this, and I am hoping FD is looking at both their own metrics and user feedback and will come up with something. But right now it's totally skewed in favor of playing solo.

My point is that, with the expected open / solo / groups availability in the console version of the game, all players - regardless of mode - will continue to contribute to community goals. You mention balance - presumably that would mean reducing the effect of the contributions of solo / private groups toward the community goal in some way to satisfy the unfairness that you perceive to exist in the current setup?

Which is not the case. The idea that I should go play solo in order to be of greatest use to my side is what I DON'T like.

Get it now?

So you are proposing that the game should be changed such that, for players to contribute most effectively to a community goal, players *need* to play in open - a game mode that not all players want to play in, i.e. (paraphrasing) "The idea that I they should go play solo open in order to be of greatest use to my their side is what I they DON'T like.".

 

[Mephane]

So you are proposing that the game should be changed such that, for players to contribute most effectively to a community goal, players *need* to play in open - a game mode that not all players want to play in, i.e. (paraphrasing) "The idea that I they should go play solo open in order to be of greatest use to my their side is what I they DON'T like.".

The tragedy here is that switching from their regular Open to Solo for a CG is of a very different quality than someone who prefers to play alone switching from Solo to Open. The former has the same experience as when they are in a system that just so happens to have them as the only player atm, which in fact is a very common occurrence anyway. The latter suddenly is potentially faced with having PvP mixed into everything they do against their express preference to be left alone.

So even if we would all agree on the current status quo being an incentive to play Solo mode - this would still be a far, far better status quo than the other way round.

 

[shinkicker444]

The tragedy here is that switching from their regular Open to Solo for a CG is of a very different quality than someone who prefers to play alone switching from Solo to Open. The former has the same experience as when they are in a system that just so happens to have them as the only player atm, which in fact is a very common occurrence anyway. The latter suddenly is potentially faced with having PvP mixed into everything they do against their express preference to be left alone.

So even if we would all agree on the current status quo being an incentive to play Solo mode - this would still be a far, far better status quo than the other way round.

Give me a toggle for PvP and I'll play Open, otherwise I'll just stick to private or solo play. I despise PVP, I'm not the best at it and I have zero patience for it especially if it is forced onto me. I like being able to do things at my own plodding pace and not having to worry about if I'm going to lose an hour or more of game time because a couple of PVP minded folks see me plodding around solo and notice my 'easy kill' badge. Because that is my experience in PVP (on the receiving end), it's never one on one, it's ALWAYS ganking and only if they have superior numbers or gear. I don't need or want that stress in a game I play to relax in.

 

[chagnampra]

My issue is that I LIKE playing in Open. I LIKE PvP and the fact that enemy commanders do drop by and interrupt and we have to duke it out etc. I also would like to know that we all have a chance to contribute to community goals evenly.

So, you want the thrill of unexpected PvP interruptions to your community goal grinding AND greater rewards for contributing to a community goal? Shouldn't the additional, fun PvP be all the reward you need?

 

[Walt Kerman]

So, you want the thrill of unexpected PvP interruptions to your community goal grinding AND greater rewards for contributing to a community goal? Shouldn't the additional, fun PvP be all the reward you need?

I think he was asking for equal rewards to the community goal as those in solo.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think he was asking for equal rewards to the community goal as those in solo.

Presumably, the rewards themselves are equal for every player for the number of kills / tonnes of cargo delivered. What seems to be at issue is players in open perceive that they have a different reward earning rate due to the presence of other players. Presumably players in open play in open for exactly that reason - the presence of other players.

 

[Seonid]

Most people are extremely bad liars, but they behave as if they are good. Even worse for them, they believe they are good - which is what fouls them up in the first place.)

Dunning-Kruger, very prevalent in on-line games, just a posh name for a basic cognitive dissonance really. I look at the hundreds of posts on the subject of the thread title before Meritz even created a forum account, when he's run out of steam we'll still have hundreds more, all saying the same thing derived from the same flawed premise and they will all come to this thread and die, cold and alone like orphans in the snow (thanks Sean Cronin).

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I get that in the current community events they are easier to do in solo.... but imo its just taking the rough with the smooth.
'
IF you accept that Elites multiplayer is envisioned to be primarily co-op play and NOT advasarial (I know some refuse to see it like that, but when the head guy says that is how it is built then IMO you should accept that that is how it is meant to be balanced) then, does it not balance out over all?...... Sure, in these community goals SOLO IS easier to get you solo score up.... but at the same time, in solo, you are on your own, the game is for the most part objectively HARDER than when playing in a wing of friends, where for the most part it is much easier thanks to co-op play (if you choose you can play as a wing in ALL and rarely see another player - which if you stay out of the "rares" routes was largely my experience of ALL).

of course, with this in mind then Mobius would be the easiest of the lot, with co-op play without the risk of people attacking you **..... but that is just the way of it.

The hardest mode would be as a lone wolf playing in ALL... but again, that is just how it goes. taking the big picture of the game as a whole however, imo ALL does not need to be harder than Solo, in a wing you have help AND you get trade buffs etc which simply you cant get in solo.

**aside from prats deliberately trying to ruin private groups, of which I would hope even the pro PvP people who think the game should be weighted towards PvP would agree there should be no place this**

 

[Riktar]

Did some PVP in Mobius today.

The lots of Masters and Experts running big ships, not knowing what to do when its not an NP. Was a real eye opener

Spoiler.. They crumbled

Hey that's kinda cool, your saying you entered a designated non-PVP group, IE a designated PVE Group, and had a little PVP fun yes, against it's published and publicly advertised rule set. I proud of you. Hope you had fun. : )

A lot less fun that expected, very few players, most combat logged (which is an exploit and against FD rules) and some used very naughty language.

I also just joined a group called Mobius, which i believed was player vs everybody.. but now i know better.

Even if I had of known, I signed no agreement with Mobius, nor used any exploits or cheats. I didn't even at any point grief.
I used a standard game mechanic to inject a little play my way into a group that accepted me in.

The lack of player interaction in there was terrible, may as well play solo. So I will be sticking to Open.

Interesting how those who wave the flag of "rules" are the same who become "blind" to them when a similar set or body of rules go against their individual wants,,,,,,,

Actually, there is PvP in Mobius in conflict zones once you pick a side. But since you opted to pick the "easy" route of sucker punching unsuspecting ships rather than facing a willing opponent in a conflict zone, um, well,,,,

I guess the correct term for your current status is being "stuck" rather than "sticking" to open since you got booted,,,,,

 

[chagnampra]

I think he was asking for equal rewards to the community goal as those in solo.

Yeah, I know! I was having a little joke, but there is still a point to be made: people who play in Open PvP often claim they are playing the true ED experience and would find a private PvE group / solo play "boring". For the 'higher risk' they want 'higher rewards', from community goals and such. Yet, if they are having so much additional fun from all those PvP encounters, should that really matter? Isn't that rewarding enough? Isn't that what Open play is all about?

 

[Walt Kerman]

Yeah, I know! I was having a little joke, but there is still a point to be made: people who play in Open PvP often claim they are playing the true ED experience and would find a private PvE group / solo play "boring". For the 'higher risk' they want 'higher rewards', from community goals and such. Yet, if they are having so much additional fun from all those PvP encounters, should that really matter? Isn't that rewarding enough? Isn't that what Open play is all about?

Well yes, but solo players argue the same about a better solo experience, so the same could be said vice versa. Is it not rewarding enough for them etc etc.

 

[Meritz]

Given that similar goodies have already been given exclusively to open players (see entry at Race to Elite) without a peep from the other two modes, you don't have a leg to stand on. Solo and Group players were excluded from the race, yet even told one another that if they wanted a shot at the brass ring to go play open. For all the whining about solo and groups, not a word has been mentioned that the ONLY exclusive content was given to open players.

Yeah, you know why FD didn't allow solo and group players into the race? Because it wouldn't be fair. They know it wouldn't be fair.

Which gives me hope they also know community goal scoring isn't fair right now, and are working on solutions to remedy that.

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

Presumably, the rewards themselves are equal for every player for the number of kills / tonnes of cargo delivered. What seems to be at issue is players in open perceive that they have a different reward earning rate due to the presence of other players. Presumably players in open play in open for exactly that reason - the presence of other players.

Precisely - and are effectively being punished for playing the way they want. I'd say that runs contrary to the base FD mantra, doesn't it?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Precisely - and are effectively being punished for playing the way they want. I'd say that runs contrary to the base FD mantra, doesn't it?

If the presence of other players affects a player's earning potential, I would expect that it applies in all roles and not just to Community Goals. In which case, the following is a recent relevant response:

Hi Micheal

I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.

Michael

 

[Pangaron]

This is exactly the same "problem" the last 20 years or so. Trammel and Felucca ALL over again.
And its nonsense.

So I will address this mostly to Feluccians.

I can enjoy PvP when I WISH to enjoy it. I do NOT enjoy being killed three times in a row, within 15 seconds after arriving in an instance, loosing one hour or more of an insurance work. So what I do then? Either something completely different (which means getting that insurance back or even playing another game), or I simply switch to solo, because I do not like the prospects of seeing anyone else at that point. It is my choice and it is valid the same as your choice of ganging up on someone else, or just waiting in a system for a person to shoot. Yes, I am indeed an evil and cowardly care-bear, because I do not want to participate in your hunt as a pray. The thing is, that if there is a solo, you cannot really kill people who do not want to be killed by you (or any player at that point), do you? That makes me happy and the day this feature is gone, I am gone too. Without sheep to hunt, you are playing some sort of group solo and you might even meet another "wolf", from another pack, which might be sad for your ship. There are people who play PvP because it is fun and they want a challenge and there are some who just want to kill newbs. The first group is in minority, but they tend to yell a lot about how they want to make PvP mandatory or PvE much less viable.

Want PvP? Ok. Do not want it? Ok. But do not deny my right to choose and do not penalize me for that choice.

 

[Meritz]

If the presence of other players affects a player's earning potential, I would expect that it applies in all roles and not just to Community Goals. In which case, the following is a recent relevant response:

Well, we're not asking for additional perks like more money or whatnot. Other players have correctly pointed out that giving more money as an incentive would mess the game up on other levels. The only issue is the score. FD are trying to connect two fundamentally different gaming modes. Not sure you could call balancing measures "perks". It's not about giving incentive for playing in Open, it's about reducing the need to play Solo if you want to help out your side (or yourself) most effectively.

So yeah, it's up to FD if they want to favor one mode over the other. I believe such an imbalanced approach would be a mistake, but ED wouldn't be the first nor the last game that pummeled its PvP into the ground. I just hope they make the PvE way more fleshed out than it is before that happens.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I just hope they make the PvE way more fleshed out than it is before that happens.

It seems from a recent thread that the AI is improving....

 

[Meritz]

It seems from a recent thread that the AI is improving....

That's not fleshing out PvE. PvE right now is on beta+ levels. We have a bunch of generic stuff going on that is all reduced to most basic grinding. If they want to nuke PvP, they better make damn sure PvE is top notch.

There are three basic tiers that keep multiplayer games going:

1. PvP
2. PvE
3. Social interaction

#3 is something they wrote off in the design stage. This game will never be a social game. Instancing and semi-random, unreliable P2P nature of the game makes sure of that. You can put in some lite MMO features in, but that's pretty much it - everything else requires central server architecture.

#1 - well, we'll see how it goes. But if they keep it unfair for Open players, or don't deal with issues such as combat logging (P2P architecture is a problem here as well) eventually PvP will get a bad rap and be reduced to fight clubs and bored gankers preying on new players.

#2 - it's shallow. Virtually every review out there agrees on that. We have, what, maybe 10-15% of DDF goals in the game? This is something they can improve, of course, but it takes time. But this game needs tons more content and variety before anyone can say that the PvE side is good, or even improving.

 

[fademist]

That's not fleshing out PvE. PvE right now is on beta+ levels. We have a bunch of generic stuff going on that is all reduced to most basic grinding. If they want to nuke PvP, they better make damn sure PvE is top notch.

There are three basic tiers that keep multiplayer games going:

1. PvP
2. PvE
3. Social interaction

#3 is something they wrote off in the design stage. This game will never be a social game. Instancing and semi-random, unreliable P2P nature of the game makes sure of that. You can put in some lite MMO features in, but that's pretty much it - everything else requires central server architecture.

#1 - well, we'll see how it goes. But if they keep it unfair for Open players, or don't deal with issues such as combat logging (P2P architecture is a problem here as well) eventually PvP will get a bad rap and be reduced to fight clubs and bored gankers preying on new players.

#2 - it's shallow. Virtually every review out there agrees on that. We have, what, maybe 10-15% of DDF goals in the game? This is something they can improve, of course, but it takes time. But this game needs tons more content and variety before anyone can say that the PvE side is good, or even improving.

the only unfair is on forum users to have them withstand ur whineing ...