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

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Have you actually tried open? Most player interactions are friendly, some are pirates (real pirates, not psychopaths) and very few just kill you. But let me ask this, what is the difference between you getting killed by an NPC or the 1 out of 1000 players that kills you on sight?

Being on the receiving end of a REAL pirate is fun, anyone saying otherwise is just delusional greedy. Might aswell play cookie clicker if you want risk free money.

I agree that I really look forward to the day when this happens and know that if a mentalist killer for lols does kill me he will have to live with significant in game consequences. Unlike you however I do not feel I should have to stay out of any hi sec systems for this and I do not think it is as rare as you sy. Up until start of Feb I only played in all network permitting. Then lave gate happened complete with glitches exploiting in space stations. For players like me IMO do not hate me, hate the players who cause me to leave. I play for fun, my own not other peoples. IF my enjoyment enhances other peoples so much the better but whilst I enjoy the risk of piracy or battle in a warzone I do not enjoy the risk of being murdered just because of who I am... Ie a hollow dot.

But genuine pirate yeah I dig that and if not to greedy if I feel out matched I may even abandon my cargo for you so we both do OK out of it. (Rather than drop it as stolen)

 

[Jockey79]

.... or it's a bad decision after losing a number of previous ships and trying to get back the insurance buffer by trading again. I did not say it was a good position to be in, merely that it is one possible way of losing it all and being busted back to a Sidewinder.

And yet, forum history shows people do it.

More recently a person left a teenager in charge of their cargo ship... now in a sidey.
Seen a "wrong button" and after burn in to the back of a station with a full hold... now in a sidey.
Someone did a thread called something like "I did something dumb"... back in a sidey.
Plus there was one "did it again" (for me, the "again" being there really highlights it).. back in a sidey.


Some of these ships take a while to get from scratch, but people risk it all to advance. (For those to clueless, these are examples of "Dangerous" within E: D and not involving PvP)

 

[DarkWalker]

There are aspects of the ED universe that are shared, whatever mode you play. Finding amicable solutions, that benefit both sides, is not usually assisted when either side refuse "to budge an inch"?

I won't budge an inch when it comes to not accepting arbitrary penalties to solo or bonuses to open.

But that isn't the only way to fix the issue. Changing the reward structure to one that more fairly rewards players, regardless of whether they are playing in solo or in open, while keeping the rules the same for everyone could work without the kind of heavy-handed and gamey systems that are those bonuses or penalties based on mode. I wouldn't mind at all if players in solo and open earned exactly the same, but that should be done by intelligently creating systems that are mode-agnostic, rather than dumb bonuses.

Having a mode with a bonus, after all, is like putting a neon sign over it with a "true players this way" lettering. That is not fair to the players of other modes in any shape or way.

 

[Herik]

But instead of addressing the issue at hand, a refusal to compromise based on a different feature.
Should any weight be given to Darkwater's opinion if he is only wanting to horse-trade to fulfil his own interests, rather than find some middle ground.
There are aspects of the ED universe that are shared, whatever mode you play. Finding amicable solutions, that benefit both sides, is not usually assisted when either side refuse "to budge an inch"?

Don't be silly, for him (and I) it's about 'Solo' play; he's correct. That 'other feature' you talked of was Offline Solo. We Solo players feel (very) connected to this...

 

[DarkWalker]

To be fair - part of Eve's success hinges on a lack of decent competition.

More like, similar to WoW, EVE sucked all the oxygen from its whole niche for a long time. Almost every game that tried to emulate EVE crashed and burned, unless they were made as niche games capable of surviving from a player base numbered at a few thousand.

EVE started as a crappy game with a disastrous launch, mind. It survived thanks to initially having very low costs, until it could get on its feet and grow the player base. But, now that the niche is filled, other games don't get that chance; either they release from the get go as a better game than what EVE become with over a decade of development (which never happened and is highly unlikely) or they scale down their scope to be able to survive on a tiny budget (which makes growing to be a full competitor to EVE very hard).

 

[Herik]

To be fair, Dark Souls 2 made adjustments to the way player to player encounters were handled in the original game.


If might be something to look into for Elite Dangerous.


In brief, players could declare themselves as aligned to one of several ethereal covenants. Each one focused on a certain theme for game play.

http://darksouls2.wiki.fextralife.com/Covenants

In Elite Dangerous, this would be like a PvP player who likes being a Pirate and attacking other lawful players being placed onto the Red Faction.

A player who likes PvP, but prefers to help other players when attacked choosing to be a Bounty Hunter designated as the Blue faction.

A PvE player might join a Green Faction.


If the Red PvP player attacked the Green PvE player, the game would send a signal to the nearest Blue PvP players to join the instance to ward off and defeat the Red PvPer.

In this way the green PvE player gets help and doesn't have to PvP, the Blue and Red PvP players are more likely to encounter the PvP they want to focus on.


Basically, as in DS2, this is a clever way of the player indicating what type of gameplay they prefer so the match-maker can do a better job of finding meaningful instances that suit all the players that have to share the same gameworld.

Thanks; very constructive. +1

 

[Mohrgan]

And why again are we associating PKers with pirates? This dosn't do this whole discussion any good at all. Call them what they are, psychopaths, terrorists, griefers, PKers.

Because you must be prepared for either, and the PK'ers call themselves Pirates.
.
This game was built with three modes. All of which are perfectly valid. Everyone payed to enjoy the game and it's content. Those that play in Open choose that rule set for as long as they play in Open. Once they change modes, they have to adjust to that new rule set. It's just like changing ships. Get over Open, it's just not a big deal.

 

[ianw]

But instead of addressing the issue at hand, a refusal to compromise based on a different feature.
Should any weight be given to Darkwater's opinion if he is only wanting to horse-trade to fulfil his own interests, rather than find some middle ground.
There are aspects of the ED universe that are shared, whatever mode you play. Finding amicable solutions, that benefit both sides, is not usually assisted when either side refuse "to budge an inch"?

But maybe you're forgetting some of the solo people bought the game because they were told they were getting offline mode - where they could play their own game with no interference from anyone else - a single player offline game.

They lost that last year. Those that have stayed to play solo only have already compromised pretty hard wouldn't you say?

As in not getting what they bought - at all.

So can you blame them if they think enough is enough now?

 

[Lokus Midgard]

Thats why I made sure to write REAL pirate, a pirate interdicts you and asks for cargo, most likely letting you live in case you comply. A real pirate is never going to kill you without some demands. Everyone responding to my post seems to have missed this.

No, we just don't find such a thing to be "fun". At best, a mild annoyance (as is anything where the only possible outcome is to take a loss without any return/gain). There's absolutely nothing in the situation which you describe, which could be interpreted as fun.

If you'd said atmospheric, that's a different kettle of fish.

But all the hours you spend trading, that don't include being blown up, could be enriched by more fear and danger.
masochists apart, people will not enjoy being destroyed. Most people will feel a sense of elation from successfully navigating troubled waters and delivering the goods.

Fear and danger can do many things to a person's life experience, but 'enriching' it generally doesn't feature in someone's top ten... Otherwise, we'd all be walking down the street, cash in hand, hoping a mugger suddenly gives chase in the interests of kicking our heads in and taking our money.

Some challenges = fun.

Most challenges = exercise in frustration.

And if it's a challenge in which you're hopelessly out-matched, then it's not so much a challenge as a sense of being bullied or even violated.

A challenge which can be more or less evenly matched? That's where the fun can be. But saying any confrontation, whatsoever, must be perceived as fun, just isn't being realistic.

 

[Rykzon]

Offline is dead, end of story, if you can't live with that you should probably move on instead of crapping all over everyone elses party.

 

[Erogenous Zones]

And yet, forum history shows people do it.

More recently a person left a teenager in charge of their cargo ship... now in a sidey.
Seen a "wrong button" and after burn in to the back of a station with a full hold... now in a sidey.
Someone did a thread called something like "I did something dumb"... back in a sidey.
Plus there was one "did it again" (for me, the "again" being there really highlights it).. back in a sidey.


Some of these ships take a while to get from scratch, but people risk it all to advance. (For those to clueless, these are examples of "Dangerous" within E: D and not involving PvP)

It would be interesting to know what proportion of the huge losses occurred in solo, and in open...
Maybe (and this is pure conjecture) they will be less common in open, as people are more conscious of the risks?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Offline is dead, end of story, if you can't live with that you should probably move on instead of crapping all over everyone elses party.

That's very considerate and understanding of you - never mind that players who wanted the offline mode were advised that solo online was still available for those who were adversely affected by the late cancellation of offline.

 

[JosiahD]

I want to do the math in this Thread.


Frontier, follow along with me.

Take the Number of players playing the game in all modes. = X

Now take the number of players that are registered on the forums. = Y

Now take the number of Individuals complaining on the Forums. Just the individuals themselves, not the number of posts they make. = Z

Now Lets do the Math
Y/X = FP = Forum Percentage aka: Percentage of players that are active here.
Pretty small Number, Huh?

Now take Z/FP = PoC =Percentage of complaints.
Look close at that Percentage. Is it large? Small? You now have all the numbers you need.

Now take the FP numbers, and the PoC numbers, and put them on one of those big whiteboards all companies have in their meeting rooms. Write them REALLY LARGE.

Have you done all that? Good. Now here is the hardest part that we have done so far.

Erase them. Yes, you heard me. Erase them.
Why? Because the small percentage of players that ever register for the forums are a small insignificant and VERY vocal group.

You don't need to listen to them redesign the game YOU made, that's right, YOU made, not them. Continue on your course making the game you planned all along. That BIG number of people who are actively playing the game? Those are the numbers that really count. If you do something that makes that number shrink, then you have an issue.

We have 3 ways to play, and some simple rules. You can play open, group, or solo. You have an economy model that effect all three modes. You have ships that are available to everyone. You have weapons that work the same for everyone. You have insurance that is there for everyone. You have ways to earn credits for everyone.

Are there things that need to be checked and balanced? Of Course. That's normal in any game. Hell, it's normal in the Real World.

There are a bunch of very worked up people here that are telling you what to do. But perspective says that 5 people yelling in a room are a lot louder than 200 people saying nothing in the same room.

Make the game, make changes to the game, but don't let a bunch of screaming people telling you to change YOUR game by drowning out the silence of the others that are not represented here be the only voices you hear. The others may not be yelling, but they are breathing.

And when they stop breathing, its game over.

Fully agree. Frontier aimed to produce the game such that each of us can choose the way we individually want to play. There are some (very much a minority) who continue to insist the game should be changed such that everyone else should have to play by their rules instead. I have no problem with trying rebalance community goals, but when that creeps into advantaging or disadvantaging one game mode over another I draw the line.

 

[Distance]

Sadly, there is no way to tell at the start of an encounter whether the interdictor is a "real" pirate or a player who will take delight in destroying their target anyway. The latter would seem to have ruined the reputation of the former - to such an extent that I never hang about waiting for the pirate to do their thing - boost/evade, boost/evade, FSD (sometimes boom).

Just an FYI, the Target Hostile key works correctly if you're interdicted. As soon as it starts, hit that and you'll see who's interdicting you, even works on legitimate police interdictions.

Also hostile npcs now have a chatter line to go with the interdiction so if you're interdicted by a hostile npc you'll know straight away. Some legit player pirates or bounty hunters will also macro a text line to let you know their intentions as well.

 

[ianw]

Offline is dead, end of story, if you can't live with that you should probably move on instead of crapping all over everyone elses party.

Makes no difference to me - I play open all the time.

The game is designed with open, solo and private groups in mind. If you can't live with that you should probably move on instead of crapping all over everyone else's party.

(see we can all do that).

 

[Erogenous Zones]

I won't budge an inch when it comes to not accepting arbitrary penalties to solo or bonuses to open.

But that isn't the only way to fix the issue. Changing the reward structure to one that more fairly rewards players, regardless of whether they are playing in solo or in open, while keeping the rules the same for everyone could work without the kind of heavy-handed and gamey systems that are those bonuses or penalties based on mode. I wouldn't mind at all if players in solo and open earned exactly the same, but that should be done by intelligently creating systems that are mode-agnostic, rather than dumb bonuses.

Having a mode with a bonus, after all, is like putting a neon sign over it with a "true players this way" lettering. That is not fair to the players of other modes in any shape or way.

I'd certainly agree that any changes have to be beneficial (for everyone). This is a complex and emotive subject, so modifications should be well considered, not arbitrary. But taking an intractable position doesn't leave room for progress, and even stifles debate.

 

[JosiahD]

Offline is dead, end of story, if you can't live with that you should probably move on instead of crapping all over everyone elses party.

And this game was never intended to be primarily about PvP but that doesn't stop the PvP crowd crapping over over the PvE party at every turn. So those who desperately wanted an offline mode are expected to suck it up, but the PvP crowd who don't accept that PvP doesn't have primacy here can whine all they want until they change things to suit them??? Seriously?

 

[Jorlin]

Have you actually tried open? Most player interactions are friendly, some are pirates (real pirates, not psychopaths) and very few just kill you. But let me ask this, what is the difference between you getting killed by an NPC or the 1 out of 1000 players that kills you on sight?

Being on the receiving end of a REAL pirate is fun, anyone saying otherwise is just delusional greedy. Might aswell play cookie clicker if you want risk free money.

I don't doubt that most of the players in open are actually nice people... even the pirates.
I just don't want to meet them. None of them. Not even a trader in a hauler.
That might change someday (i surely hope so) but at the moment it's better for everyone if i stick to solo.

 

[Robert Maynard]

From a poll (still running) on which mode players play in:

 

[fademist]

From a poll (still running) on which mode players play in:

http://i.imgur.com/jVfbkhU.png

368 ppl isnt near enough to the player base lol