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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Freedom to choose, wrong isn't freedom.

I think that is the pure base of "freedom" - you're not free if someone else tells you how to choose.


When one mode is the best choice for community goals, there isn't really much of a choice is there?

Best for who?

Because this is what it boils down to, personal greed by those playing.
All I'm seeing is people spouting what THEY earn, THEIR top 5% rewards etc... what has that got to do with "community"? - nothing, it is all personal greed and nothing to do with helping the CG progress.
Teaming up in a wing of 2 or 3, blasting through the NPCs as fast as possible as a group is great for the community goal score and what you all hand in as a team, but not so much for the personal wallet.
 
You're the one with the problem, solo and group players have no problems with open and are not trying to get you nerfed.

If the advantages were as big as you say they are, why aren't you in game playing solo earning like a mad man.

You are not trying to get us nerfed because we are already nerfed.

The advantages were that big and that's exactly what we did (played in solo in Lugh). I had several guys in my group, some originally below ten million, who are already more than halfway to an anaconda from several days fighting.
 
Last edited:
I often wonder if Sandro secretly regrets that they have taken such a strong stance on integrating the two modes. My God does it complicate his job! Maybe he welcomes the challenge!
 
You are not trying to get us nerfed because we are already nerfed.

The advantages were that big and that's exactly what we did (played in solo in Lugh). I had several guys in my group, some originally below ten million, who are already more than halfway to an anaconda from several days fighting.

That is kind of the whole point. Many people have no, and I mean absolutely none, interest in being in a "group". This need of hand-holding, being helped out by others in easy-mode group play - is anathema to some. Being in some group with something akin to a "leader" I find a horrendous notion in a game like Elite. It's all about you - it's not about you and your gang.

My apologies if this offends anyone - but it truly is indicative of group mentality. Whatever happened to independent thought, individualism, freedom of expression and action, and not being shot on sight because "Non-gild KILL!"
 
I think that is the pure base of "freedom" - you're not free if someone else tells you how to choose.




Best for who?

Because this is what it boils down to, personal greed by those playing.
All I'm seeing is people spouting what THEY earn, THEIR top 5% rewards etc... what has that got to do with "community"? - nothing, it is all personal greed and nothing to do with helping the CG progress.
Teaming up in a wing of 2 or 3, blasting through the NPCs as fast as possible as a group is great for the community goal score and what you all hand in as a team, but not so much for the personal wallet.

You show your ignorance. Combat community goals measure progress by bounties (their value) handed in. So when you play in a forced area (you can't go to other systems to farm by yourself) in Open, you have to earn your "progress" in a target poor environment and share the bounty rewards. In other words, in Open CMDR's have 1 instance for every X CMDR's with a fixed income potential per instance. Meanwhile, Solo gets one instance to themselves producing the same income that is shared by several CMDR's in Open. The fact you think everyone up in arms over this is just greedy, shows you simply don't understand what the differences are.
.
The same applies with Trading community goals. CSG drained every station of weapons and armor within 70 LY of Lugh, and every player in Open immediately saw that lack of supply. Meanwhile, Solo players continue to see "normal" supply until the background simulator updates itself, meaning more supply for Solo players. It is not a question of "greed" at all, especially considering trading in battle weapons and reactive armor is not a high paying endeavor to begin with. "Greedy" players would simply not have participated in the Trading community goals in the first place.
 
I can make a lot more CR in a wing in open or group than I can in solo. Solo I will get run out of town by multiple targets. In group with my friends we can target and herd multiple ship and destroy them far faster than we can in solo and the bounties even when shared seem higher too. Fewer sub 5000 ships and more 20,000 - 200,000 ships. Plus because there are more of us we are bolder and search for pythons, anacondas and clippers even if they have backup because we know that in our vultures we won't have much trouble especially if some of the NPC's ships join in when they see wanted ships returning fire at us.

In the end both modes have things that can be exploited for faster CR harvesting. You can earn much more money early on in the game flying small ships Asp and smaller in open with a buddy or two than you can in solo even if they all end up being NPC's. With larger ships it starts to get easier to make money as a trader in solo.

I barely read Galnet and don't take part in community goals so I don't know much about Luge to be able to comment. I do know that the Alliance response force subgroup of mobius were advised to not take part since the alliance leaders chose to stay out of the conflict. I only know one out of the four pilots I see most often went on an excursion there.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of solo players don't take part in the community goals just judging by the response in my group.

You obviously have never played in a Wing in a Conflict Zone. If you had, you'd know that the enemy ships don't spawn faster, which means everyone is forced to WAIT and loiter around waiting for enemies to appear. Just because a conflict zone has 4 or 8 other Commanders, doesn't mean the potential for that conflict zone to produce combat bonds increases by 8x. In fact, it doesn't increase at all. So Open players are forced to share a target poor environment, and share the payouts too. THIS is why Open is so much less desirable than Solo, if your goal is to WIN THE COMMUNITY GOAL.

By the way, a Vulture is able to kill a Python or an Anaconda by itself. "Cornering" NPC's and ganging up on them... just sounds like you're theorycrafting, and not speaking from actual experience.
 
That is kind of the whole point. Many people have no, and I mean absolutely none, interest in being in a "group". This need of hand-holding, being helped out by others in easy-mode group play - is anathema to some. Being in some group with something akin to a "leader" I find a horrendous notion in a game like Elite. It's all about you - it's not about you and your gang.

My apologies if this offends anyone - but it truly is indicative of group mentality. Whatever happened to independent thought, individualism, freedom of expression and action, and not being shot on sight because "Non-gild KILL!"

They all individually chose to join up and everyones voice is heard. We have our own forums. Its community driven. I didn't set up the IRC, I didn't program the IRC bots, I didn't set up the teamspeak. I didn't setup our forums.

You aren't required to do anything, I persuade them to do what is logically the next step and they understand what that logic is. If there is disagreement I know how to find middle ground. Not only that you can be part of other groups, I don't care. You can be a Merc of Mikunn for a day, I don't care.

Communities are stronger with individual thought, and that is something we have a lot of. And elite doesn't have to be about one person, as you suggest, it can be about many. Empire v Fed. Or in our case the Mercs of Mikunn, and we are testing the game mechanics for everyone even for you.

Also as far as I know of no-one does "non-guild kills" in elite as there are no resources to protect so that argument has no bearing. They may exist but they are probably small groups that I haven't encountered. There are some pirate groups that attack everyone, but they would be doing that to anyway even if they were alone. There are guilds that attack each other, but there really aren't many reasons to attack random pilots entering a system unless you are enacting a blockade in which case, the reason is "blockade".



How about pop in our team speak and talk to some of the guys there. I think you will be surprised, judging from your current viewset.

Also normally we don't play in group or solo, we play in open. The CG was the first time we were forced into it.
 
Last edited:
And this is why this thread gets no where, though at this point Im not expecting it to. I'm only here to strengthen my argument, and find the rare diamond.:p

And this is why I will never change my stance against guilds, though at this point I've seen everything I need to see. I'm only here to see others strengthen my argument, and find the rare thinker :D
 
Let's review facts, and compare apples to apples, ok?.

Jeeze, the word griefer and the personal attacks on the players.. *glass houses*

You don't hear true open players calling other open players griefers.. They call them better or had an unlucky encounter with them. ( Yes there are a few people who use small exploits to do nothing more that break the game ) BUT if they are not using an exploit, they are working with in the game design.
If they are murders... That is totally fine... I get moaned at for being a griefer but if you ask any of the players I killed, truthfully they will admit that before i killed them, I sent them a message asking for 15 Tonnes of cargo. At which point that decided to boost and not send any form of communication.
You speak to everyone else, that stopped or that I manually retrieved cargo from and bar anyone that told me to go F myself for being a pirate, would have gotten away with their ship.

Anyone who ran or fought back got shot down.

I have have been chased around systems by Wings of players and as yet, I haven't died. ( Had a few PVP straight up 1v1s and lost a few of them sure )
There are plenty of players I see, who I know will be hard to get cargo from or even better than me and I run away from them. Because I can and plan ahead.

WHEN I do die and I will.

I will have had a great fight and know that I got beaten by the better player or just was unlucky.
At no point will i scream GRIEFER and run to Solo/Private ( I left Mobius way before any ban was placed because it was really boring and all the Experts and Masters in their big boy ships, either failed to put up any challenge or combat logged ).

So yeah just because you don't like it or can't defend yourself from someone with EXACTLY the same game options as you. Doesn't make them a griefer.

You wouldn't play a football match and complain to the ref when someone tackled you, would you?

*******************************************************************************************************************************

Majinvash, thanks for taking the time to respond. I have some time this evening, so I'll answer your points one at a time.

1. "Jeeze, the word griefer and the personal attacks on the players.. *glass houses*
- Absolutely the word "griefer". The behavior I describe in 3 of the 4 examples is *exactly* that. I didn't coin the phrase, I'm just using it appropriately.
- What were my"personal attacks on players"? I mentioned no names. I clearly state a specific behavior, and I questioned the the mindset that leads to it. I then
proposed a way to reduce the negative impact of that behavior on the game by imposing substantial fines/penalties for the behavior. Yes, I did label the offenders
"griefers", and I even allowed myself the fun of questioning their mental capacity. If that is your idea of a "personal attack", we will just have to disagree on that. What I did notice, though, is that you call out a specific Private group of players by name and criticize them. I haven't yet figured out why you believe it is
reasonable to criticize me for making personal attacks (that are not personal), and then criticize an entire group of people by name?
- I'm not really sure how your "glass Houses" statement fits my post? That is a reference to hypocrisy, and I haven't engaged in the behavior I criticize in my post.
You have.

2. "You don't hear true open players calling other open players griefers.."
- That may be true? Its completely irrelevant, but it may be true. If by "true open players" you mean those who play ONLY in Open play, I made it pretty clear that
I have been a SOLO player since I bought the game, and I have played very little in Open Play mode. So I fail to see what your point is in restating the fact?.

3. "They call them better or had an unlucky encounter with them."
- The possibility of bad luck is exactly how I described my nearly instantaneous death in the Combat Zone. I said: "I'm not sure whether that was a fair
representation of an Open-play conflict zone or just a stroke of bad luck of the IMMEDIATELY, irrefutably, fatal kind?" Reading carefully, you would notice that I
described having a problem with three consecutive instances of 3 or 4-on-1 engagements, mostly with ships more capable than mine. I have no problem with
losing a fair fight. And any one of them may have been a better combat pilot than I am. But now we will never know, will we? I just recently reached 'Master"
status, so I have no delusions about where my skills stack up compared to anyone else. I guess it is lucky for me that my ability to win a dogfight in a game has
absolutely nothing to do with my self-image or sense of self-worth.

4. "BUT if they are not using an exploit, they are working with in the game design. If they are murders... That is totally fine..."
- And game design is what we are discussing in this thread. You apparently enjoy the option to play a "pirate", which is fine. The examples I described had
NOTHING to do with piracy. I stated clearly that I had NO cargo, NO bounty, and there was NO communication from the attackers. If there is a legit/valid
reason in-game for such an attack, please enlighten me. If not, I submit that allowing Open players / wings to attack less-capable players for no discernible
reason or benefit (a form of griefing, IMO), WITHOUT SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OR REPERCUSSIONS keeps a lot of players away from Open play.
Your position is a bit confusing, since in some posts on this thread you seem to advocate for everyone coming to Open play, but in this post you boast about
being one of the players that lots of us avoid by sticking to SOLO / Group mode and avoiding Open play like the plague. And don't forget: The solo/private
group players are "are working within the game design", which you clearly state is fine.

5. "I get moaned at for being a griefer but...<SNIP> ...better than me and I run away from them. Because I can and plan ahead."
Your description of encounters with other players offers a few interesting insights (apparently my post criticized behavior that you feel the need to defend?), but it
has nothing whatsoever to do with my post, which was NOT about you, and NOT about piracy.

6. "So yeah just because you don't like it or can't defend yourself from someone with EXACTLY the same game options as you. Doesn't make them a griefer."
- You finally make a correct statement. My dislike of their behavior does not make them a griefer. The fact that they actively engage in the behavior known as
"GRIEFING" makes them griefers. I'll explain it using your own logic in reverse: So yeah just because you like it that lots of us can't (or simply don't want to be
bothered to) defend themselves from someone with far more experience and better equipment than they have doesn't make you NOT a griefer.

7. "You wouldn't play a football match and complain to the ref when someone tackled you, would you?"
- This is such a silly non-sequitur it is hard to respond to rationally, but I'll try. Its interesting that you equate ED to playing football. Lots of players think of ED
as being more of a Math Olympics, a good game of Golf (if there is such a thing?), or any of a thousand other pass-times that are NOT the game you want them
to be playing. So to answer your question in a way that actually relates back to my original post: yes, I might just complain to the ref about getting tackled by a
fully dressed-out NFL line-backer when I'm playing a friendly game of flag / touch football with the neighborhood kids. Oh wait! I see the problem now! You
are FINE with dressing out in full pads to tackle the local pee-wee league kids. And, if they don't like it, they should leave, and not say anything to attempt to
fix the problem for those who stay on the field, right?
 
You obviously have never played in a Wing in a Conflict Zone. If you had, you'd know that the enemy ships don't spawn faster, which means everyone is forced to WAIT and loiter around waiting for enemies to appear. Just because a conflict zone has 4 or 8 other Commanders, doesn't mean the potential for that conflict zone to produce combat bonds increases by 8x. In fact, it doesn't increase at all. So Open players are forced to share a target poor environment, and share the payouts too. THIS is why Open is so much less desirable than Solo, if your goal is to WIN THE COMMUNITY GOAL.

By the way, a Vulture is able to kill a Python or an Anaconda by itself. "Cornering" NPC's and ganging up on them... just sounds like you're theorycrafting, and not speaking from actual experience.

I'm talking about bounty hunting at a RES or Nav. No one in my group plays as a wing in a CZ there isn't any real money in it. And we didn't take part in the community thing, we only protect Alliance interests and prop up systems that are failing. Places like Naitis which we flipped 90% within 24 hours a couple of weekends ago.

What I would really like to see is more background sim updates within the 24 hour period so we can actually see some progression instead of grinding and waiting for the next morning to see the result of our efforts.
 
And this is why I will never change my stance against guilds, though at this point I've seen everything I need to see. I'm only here to see others strengthen my argument, and find the rare thinker :D

Right here buddy! :D

And seriously, whats wrong with my 'guild' :eek:
 
Last edited:
Right here buddy! :D

And seriously, whats wrong with my 'guild' :eek:

Lol there is nothing "wrong" with guilds. They have a perfectly good place in other games, and the community that they provide can add flavor to an otherwise bland gaming experience. I simply find that Elite is not a game suited to guild play - as the whole idea behind Elite is that you are a pilot making their own progress in the universe, and not some random scrub standing on the shoulders of giants because they paid $30 to join some forum.
 
Here is one scenario that doesn't involve combat logging, but does involve avoiding consequences.

Let's say we have Bob, a trader. Bob usually plays in Open. Bob decides to take his shiny new T7 hauler to a system well known for two things: plentiful rare goods and pirates preying on traders. So Bob goes to the system, lands on a station and loads up with the goods.
"What's this?" - says Bob, upon seeing a notification of three new contacts appearing in local. He does what every smart trader does, and checks his comms contacts for the list of player ships.
A Python, a FdL and a Vulture. Doesn't look good. Maybe if he can target them and see who they are...
It's Neckbeard and his cronies!
So what can Bob do? If he undocks, he knows CMDR Neckbeard and his pals are waiting for him. His T7 wouldn't stand a chance, he would get robbed and crunched!

So naughty Bob logs out... and logs back in solo. Whew! He flies out of the station, and to the next system, whereupon he logs out again, and logs back in Open.

Threat avoided... as well as consequence of risking a pirate infested system in a slow, ill-prepared ship.

Pretty much the same as when CMDR Neckbeard cleared his bounty immediately after slaughtering Phil (who didn't switch to Solo), thus avoiding the attention of CMDR Chuck, the famous bounty hunter.

Just because you are a trader doesn't mean you also do not make actions that require consequences to be visited upon you.

And see, that's where FD messed up. They tried to force two incompatible things together. The threat of consequence of your actions and the means to avoid them altogether.

Years ago, when I was testing the waters to see if I actually liked open PvP, what I often did in similar situations was different in execution, identical in effect: I would pick some book I wanted (or needed, for college) to read and kept myself entertained for the next hour or so while moving the mouse every couple minutes to avoid going AFK (and thus forcing the campers to be on their toes, even though I had no intention to resume playing anytime soon). I don't think even the most tenacious camper I've met lasted a measly hour. And, given that I tend to purchase at least half hundred books per year (a book a week is my leisurely pace), I never lack something to read.

This didn't even cut into my total play time for the week, as that was just shifting around reading time and playing time.

Do you think that it is better to be able to negate some risk for you own advantage?

If that risk being negated is PvP? Yes, always. After trying games that mix PvP with PvE enough to be absolutely sure I can never, ever, enjoy open, non-consensual PvP, I only play a game if I have some way to completely negate any and all PvP risk. If I can't, I don't even bother giving a chance to the game, as being exposed to non-consensual PvP is a guarantee that I can't enjoy the experience.

It's not really about the risk, though. It's about eliminating a part of the experience that utterly ruins everything for me. I will never accept non-consensual PvP, but I love hard games; I even tend to play most games with extra, self-imposed restrictions in order to have some fun, doing things like not using consumables or other items that help the player, simply because I find most games nowadays to be too easy.

Only the most ardent and sportsmanlike players will stick with Open rules come hell or high water, and often suffer for it because others sure won't.

I think the actual qualities are a love for the mix of PvP and PvE found in open and a willingness to suffer setbacks, even large ones. I'm not sure I would call that sportsmanship, as open is as far from a sport as it can be; sports — or, at least, competitive sports, which is where sportsmanship actually matters — tend to be as even as the creators can make, which can never be the case in the typical open mode PvP.

And, BTW, if death in PvP was just a slap in the wrist — as is in most PvP games out there, apart from EVE and a couple other "hardcore" ones — I don't think combat logoff and mode switching would be any issue. If sticking to the end didn't hurt, players would do it all the time just for the fun of it.

That's why other games have timers on such things. So you can choose the way you want to play, but ad-hoc switching according to conditions of the game is not possible. If that was implemented from the get-go, I don't think we would be having this 420+ page thread about it.

Depends. Most games that do have timers have them for leaving PvP after an actual engagement — which wouldn't be the case of the player that docked and discovered that a pirate followed him, as he was never engaged — and the timer tends to be reasonably small, a few minutes at most. Not all have timers; DCUO allows players to jump back and forth between the PvP and PvE worlds at will as long as the player travels to his HQ (accessible through two-way teleporters from any of the myriad safehouses which can be reached from anywhere in the map in a couple minutes at most), for example. Plus, of course, the lack of death penalties in most MMOs do change the scenario quite a lot; forcing players to remain in PvP to the bitter end isn't really an issue when the most that player will lose is a couple minutes doing a corpse run.

Now, if you are thinking about PvP-focused games rather than common MMOs, those really are different, but ED was never meant to be PvP-focused. Solo mode, and free switching, being promised from the start of the KS are a dead indication of it.

Freedom to choose, wrong isn't freedom. When one mode is the best choice for community goals, there isn't really much of a choice, is there? If you want pvp you do open, if you actually want to make a difference you play Solo. With group/mobius being the middle ground.

For earning rewards, perhaps. For advancing your faction's goals, though, what you said is false.

you might not be advancing your own faction's goals while you are locked in a PvP battle against a commander from another faction, but you are preventing that other commander from advancing his own faction's goals. So it all evens out, and though you perhaps earn less bonds, your actual, real contribution isn't any lower than that of a solo player.

What does happen if you give up and leave? Your opponent, still in open, is now without opposition and can advance his faction as well as if he was in solo. That is what you are preventing while you engage your opponent in combat.
 
Lol there is nothing "wrong" with guilds. They have a perfectly good place in other games, and the community that they provide can add flavor to an otherwise bland gaming experience. I simply find that Elite is not a game suited to guild play - as the whole idea behind Elite is that you are a pilot making their own progress in the universe, and not some random scrub standing on the shoulders of giants because they paid $30 to join some forum.

On the contrary, We are pilots making our own progress in the universe together, and not some random scrubs standing on the shoulders of major NPC factions. Our forums will always be free, like Lugh.

Feudalism is the way! (and so is lots of creds)
 
Don't you have all those lovely players around to shoot? You have your entire wing as valid targets whilst you wait for the instance to replenish itself.


Are you serious? What are you even arguing? Are you just bitter this game has an online mode instead of offline only? Why don't you keep this discussion on topic instead of derailing into stupidity.
 
Are you serious? What are you even arguing? Are you just bitter this game has an online mode instead of offline only? Why don't you keep this discussion on topic instead of derailing into stupidity.

If bored PvP pilots have nothing to shoot in an area, why should they not shoot each other to further their kill count? After all, ALL PvP is meaningful, right?

Or perhaps those PvP pilots would prefer to not shoot each other, but just randomly blow up other people for no reason apart from them not being in their group. Hence, being in a group is some "protection" from being shot at by other players in Open. Therefore it's easymode :D
 
Last edited:
If bored PvP pilots have nothing to shoot in an area, why should they not shoot each other to further their kill count? After all, ALL PvP is meaningful, right?

Or perhaps those PvP pilots would prefer to not shoot each other, but just randomly blow up other people for no reason apart from them not being in their group. Hence, being in a group is some "protection" from being shot at by other players in Open. Therefore it's easymode :D

You have some seriously warped impressions of open mode mate. You should probably take a step back and consider either experiencing open before discussing it, or not discuss it at all. You make a fool of yourself.
 
You have some seriously warped impressions of open mode mate. You should probably take a step back and consider either experiencing open before discussing it, or not discuss it at all. You make a fool of yourself.

:D I'm in open right now :D It's not my fault that you jump to conclusions. Have a lovely day :D
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom