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

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Demiga!

This is something that I'm considering.

There won't be any changes in the immediate future (our time is fairly booked up right now), but on face value it certainly seems plausible and maybe reasonable to me. I'll need to chew it over some more, obviously. I *believe* a change like this would be possible though (again, I'd have to verify that with team server).

Comments on this would be welcome.

Oh, but obviously, Commander Demiga, let's try and keep the temperature at a reasonable level . Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as they do so politely.

 

[jp josh]

how bout no....

i would like npc in wings to coordinate better in solo and wings of them be more common/hire our own wing to with our spare ships before we take your idea (for combat oriented goals)

for trading make pirates not just interdict but wait for you outside the station again we need to flesh out wings and ai a bit more.

exploring still exploring i don't want to see any type of reduction for explores community goals.

however i am open to the idea of boosting open play bonuses (when in that mode you get a 25% boost to all round profit but the number contributed stays the same)

id also like more range of community goals. (smuggling) where bigger ships are more of a hindrance than helpful so that way players in early ships can actually help rather than add pocket change. (friend tried to help in lugh even though all he had was a adder)

 

[atak2]

I think it's viable. Glad to hear the devs are thinking on this!

 

[Arindor]

If I choose to play solo then I expect my contribution towards the goal to be 100% (regardless of whether I receive the full amount). Contributing half sounds like an attempt to punish solo players and coerce them into open IMO, and it also has a whiff of a two-tier ED.

 

[starjump]

how bout no....

i would prefer if npc's were in wings we could hire our own wings and npc wings coordinated rather than take your idea.

and as for the afk cap ship farming i make more actively hunting than doing the afk turret.

or should we make a t9 only count for 1/9th of its cargo haulage in community goal because its unfair to the new players in haulers, adders, cobras?

Wat? All he said what the contributed value is smaller towards the community goal. The rest is the same.
|
I dont have an issue with this personally. Then again, i would like to have 2 characters (1 in open and 1 in solo).

 

[Viajero]

Hello Commander Demiga!

This is something that I'm considering.

There won't be any changes in the immediate future (our time is fairly booked up right now), but on face value it certainly seems plausible and maybe reasonable to me. I'll need to chew it over some more, obviously. I *believe* a change like this would be possible though (again, I'd have to verify that with team server).

Comments on this would be welcome.

Oh, but obviously, Commander Demiga, let's try and keep the temperature at a reasonable level . Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as they do so politely.

Great news! For a bit more details on this type of idea see also:

Based on our recent experience in Lugh the issue about players going into SOLO mode to avoid blockades etc (especially traders contributing in Khaka or Balandin to the weapons import missions) has come up again, so I would like to propose a small change to the progress tracking of opposing Community Goals:

I personally dont have any issue with players deciding to play in SOLO and getting the same Cr. and rewards that players in OPEN do. Player development in terms of Cr. per hour per ship is probably about the same in OPEN or in SOLO. That is likely a non issue.

For me the issue is in Community Goal related opposing missions where player blockading is possible. Because I dont think NPC can set up and prepare blockades as agressively and coordinatedly as players can.

I would like to propose a change in the way these Community Goals work so to align this issue:

Opposing Community Goals would have two separate progress trackers, a tonnage/bonds one (like currently) and an actual "effectiveness" one:
1 - A standard volume progress tracker for actual absolute tonnage or bonds contributed much like we have today, so Cr. can be awarded much like today to both SOLO and OPEN players nornmally
2 - A actual Community Goal "effectiveness" tracker that would be the one actually used to decide the actual fate or resolution of opposing Community goals, like the ones in Lugh. Under this second header the "effectiveness" of a SOLO player contributing to the Goal would be reduced, say, in half.

Both trackers should be displayed in parallel in the Mission screen so players can see them both and then decide if they want to play in SOLO or OPEN to better contribute to it.

This system, or a similar one, would keep SOLO players whole in terms of Cr. progress and rewards based on tonnage / bonds, but would at the same time make blockading and escorting activity much more meaningful in the case of opposing Community goals. These will in turn also incentivize wings of escorts gameplay etc.

 

[Traven Mayhem]

No, not the larger game, just some of the people in it. That's what choice means, it's not to spite you personally you know.

they have chosen to exclude themselves from 'some people in the greater game' however they still have the ability to affect the economy, sovreignty and community goals those players they have chosen to ignore are playing for and towards.

They maintain economic control of any system they want to, and military control in that they control the space completely and cannot be challenged. Open players have the same level of economic control, but are at a severely uneven fotting with regards to the military control since they can be attacked and/or blockaded in it. Choosing to play 'in open' puts you at this military/force disadvantage against any player group who chooses to play in closed or open.

Does this sound like fair, equal footing to you? Of course not.

the only argument the closed/solo players have come up with is 'well you can play in closed and choose to have the same economic/military advantage/disadvantage ratio', except that forces me to change my gameplay away from my preferred method to achieve equal footing with another player group, thus not allowing me to play the game 'the way i want to' .. This goes against the core design principle of the game.

 

[atak2]

Seriously, it annoys people. Solo has every right to do community goals - Yes, I get that there is an "unfair advantage" for solo players working a community goal VS. an open player.

Its a very easy fix by FDEV - Make it so that when a Solo/Private Group player turns in a bond for 30k (example) they get 30k in cash, but it only counts as..15k towards the community goal

Wheras the Open players can turn in the same 30k Bond, Receive the same 30k in cash, but it counts as 30k towards the community goal.

Its not so much about not letting this group do that with this, but just make the values weighted differently. Open, it is much harder to make that 30k than it is in solo, so it should be worth x times as much for the goal.

Is this a viable solution for anyone?

For anyone that can see my signature, I am an avid player of Solo/Group - but I really do hear, understand, and mostly agree with what the solo players are saying. I do want to start playing in open at some point. If anyone can give me a good reason as to why this wont work or help, then please explain...

P.S. I say very easy fix by FDEV, but honestly I have no idea. The concept is simple though

Hello Commander Demiga!

This is something that I'm considering.

There won't be any changes in the immediate future (our time is fairly booked up right now), but on face value it certainly seems plausible and maybe reasonable to me. I'll need to chew it over some more, obviously. I *believe* a change like this would be possible though (again, I'd have to verify that with team server).

Comments on this would be welcome.

Oh, but obviously, Commander Demiga, let's try and keep the temperature at a reasonable level . Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as they do so politely.

how bout no....

i would like npc in wings to coordinate better in solo and wings of them be more common/hire our own wing to with our spare ships before we take your idea (for combat oriented goals)

for trading make pirates not just interdict but wait for you outside the station again we need to flesh out wings and ai a bit more.

exploring still exploring i don't want to see any type of reduction for explores community goals.

however i am open to the idea of boosting open play bonuses (when in that mode you get a 25% boost to all round profit but the number contributed stays the same)

id also like more range of community goals. (smuggling) where bigger ships are more of a hindrance than helpful so that way players in early ships can actually help rather than add pocket change. (friend tried to help in lugh even though all he had was a adder)

Hello Commander jp josh!

We've hopefully got a fix for Capital ship farming exploits lined up (provisionally for 1.3, but no guarantee).

What I took from Commander Demiga's suggestion was that there might be a consensus that activities carried out in solo mode are "safer/unfair" as there is no chance for other Commanders to oppose them.

I'm not going to take a side at the moment, because I'd like to consider it more.

It could definitely be seen as an attempt to entice folk into playing open, though if the personal rewards remained unchanged I'm not sure that this would be an utter evil.

Fundamentally, Community goals are about Commanders working together, in concert or in opposition. It does not seem completely unreasonable that for such elements we might encourage direct interaction more.

On the other hand, I'm wary of the precedent this might set, and want to make sure that solo mode awlays fulfils all the requirements it needs to, remaining the completely valid option that it is.

So this is something we would not consider lightly.

No, definitely not. Play your own way they said. Well if they punish me for playing my own way then I'll be very irritated. Why should I have to do twice as much to qualify for goal awards just because I choose not to expose myself to being mugged by Johnny McPewPew for my lunch money.

Seriously Sandro. Stop considering this. Very many of your players choose to play in solo and in groups. You'll be upsetting a very large section of the player base.

Hello Commander Jerakeen!

Possibly I could attempt a counter that suggests at the moment it is unfair against open play mode - you have more risks and challenges but only get the same rewards.

I take your point though.

Possibly, community goal thresholds, when it came to determining where each player sits, could be adjusted to ensure that solo players' actual amounts were considered, which I *think* would prevent any loss of goal rewards.

Like I said though, we'll need to chew over this some more when we get the time. Nothing is going to happen right away.

Sandro - Please read my edit in the original post regarding the tempurature - I apologize for that...was very heated atm lol

Thanks for the reply though - its just if you look at the core of all these issues,its that open mode is harder, so what is the incentive for a CMDR to play in open when they can farm in solo? Well, obviously, you cant make the bounties worth different amounts, that would absolutely enrage everyone.

So why not - in your Personal opinion, what would be some reasons as to why this wouldnt work?

Hello Commander Demiga!

Don't worry, no harm, no foul, it was just a helpful reminder!

I can't give you my considered opinions just yet because, well, I need a little more time to consider them!

But this is clearly an interesting debate, on both sides of the fence, so we will revisit it at a later date.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=130649

 

[Kyokushin]

Maybe changes presented here are not exactly what i would like to see, but it is good start.

Althroug i tnink modes should be separaded for different cmdr slot, OR what could be better and obey separation problem (crowd may be angry) - there should be a cooldown time betweent changing a slot.

For example, you playing solo and want to play open - you can wait for example two hours.
I do not know it is good or bad solution, and what consequences this should make, however better will be to make switching modes make more harder.

 

[obliterator]

If I choose to play solo then I expect my contribution towards the goal to be 100% (regardless of whether I receive the full amount). Contributing half sounds like an attempt to punish solo players and coerce them into open IMO, and it also has a whiff of a two-tier ED.

Yet if you have 100% contribution it punishes open players and coerce them into solo, because it's about 2x more efficient.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander jp josh!

We've hopefully got a fix for Capital ship farming exploits lined up (provisionally for 1.3, but no guarantee).

What I took from Commander Demiga's suggestion was that there might be a consensus that activities carried out in solo mode are "safer/unfair" as there is no chance for other Commanders to oppose them.

I'm not going to take a side at the moment, because I'd like to consider it more.

It could definitely be seen as an attempt to entice folk into playing open, though if the personal rewards remained unchanged I'm not sure that this would be an utter evil.

Fundamentally, Community goals are about Commanders working together, in concert or in opposition. It does not seem completely unreasonable that for such elements we might encourage direct interaction more.

On the other hand, I'm wary of the precedent this might set, and want to make sure that solo mode always fulfils all the requirements it needs to, remaining the completely valid option that it is.

So this is something we would not consider lightly.

 

[Jerakeen]

No, definitely not. Play your own way they said. Well if they punish me for playing my own way then I'll be very irritated. Why should I have to do twice as much to qualify for goal awards just because I choose not to expose myself to being mugged by Johnny McPewPew for my lunch money.

Seriously Sandro. Stop considering this. Very many of your players choose to play in solo and in groups. You'll be upsetting a very large section of the player base.

 

[Kaeldian]

Ack, atak2 beat me to it.

Appears that FD is considering having solo and open interact differently with the community goals.

 

[Stumbling]

Before any change is made, they should calculate exactly how much harder open is compared to solo play- i see many CMDR's stating they have earned XX millions from these goals in open and that apart from one or two interdictions most have not even noticed other players when doing the goals. So if the calculations show no or very little difference then that's where the balance of rewards should stay.

If you're going to change the end reward, then make sure the adjustment is proportionate to the risk.

Capital ship afk farmers should have all their CR removed, ships sold, and put back in the starting sidey with 500Cr. In future, events should be designed so that afk farming isn't possible- perhaps by increasing threat level each time you kill something so that more and more ships fire on you (and the capital ship ignores anything not firing at it).

 

[tmw2442]

If wings during open play was not primarily used to gang traders with impunity or gang up on solos in combat zone; we would not need solo play!

 

[obliterator]

No, definitely not. Play your own way they said. Well if they punish me for playing my own way then I'll be very irritated. Why should I have to do twice as much to qualify for goal awards just because I choose not to expose myself to being mugged by Johnny McPewPew for my lunch money.

Because those who choose to be exposed already have to do twice as much. It's not punishment, it's simple balance. Solo shouldn't be more efficient than open.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Jerakeen!

Possibly I could attempt a counter that suggests at the moment it is unfair against open play mode - you have more risks and challenges but only get the same rewards.

I take your point though.

Possibly, community goal thresholds, when it came to determining where each player sits, could be adjusted to ensure that solo players' actual amounts were considered, which I *think* would prevent any loss of goal rewards.

Like I said though, we'll need to chew over this some more when we get the time. Nothing is going to happen right away.

 

[777Driver]

Why should I have to do twice as much to qualify for goal awards just because I choose not to expose myself to being mugged by Johnny McPewPew for my lunch money.

Because you are doing half the amount of work as those that choose OPEN... And I'm not a big open fan at the moment, used to play 99% of time but joined Mobius recently. As long as they fix penalty's for murder, then I'm all up for going back to OPEN full time because cmdr pew pew has to account for his actions.

face it, you have an easy time in solo/private, no if's or but's about it.. I'm flying a shieldless T9 right now in Private.. Open players risk more so should be rewarded more

 

[fademist]

Yet if you have 100% contribution it punishes open players and coerce them into solo, because it's about 2x more efficient.

they pay the same amount of money like you ...so whats ur issue ?

i smell if half income for solo will come some will lose income ;p

 

[Demiga]

Hello Commander Demiga!

This is something that I'm considering.

There won't be any changes in the immediate future (our time is fairly booked up right now), but on face value it certainly seems plausible and maybe reasonable to me. I'll need to chew it over some more, obviously. I *believe* a change like this would be possible though (again, I'd have to verify that with team server).

Comments on this would be welcome.

Oh, but obviously, Commander Demiga, let's try and keep the temperature at a reasonable level . Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as they do so politely.

Sandro - Please read my edit in the original post regarding the tempurature - I apologize for that...was very heated atm lol

Thanks for the reply though - its just if you look at the core of all these issues,its that open mode is harder, so what is the incentive for a CMDR to play in open when they can farm in solo? Well, obviously, you cant make the bounties worth different amounts, that would absolutely enrage everyone.

So why not - in your Personal opinion, what would be some reasons as to why this wouldnt work?