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

[DrugaRunda]

This entire debate stems from an unfortunate design choice on top of a very rudimentary law system (read consequences for unlawful actions). There is a very simple way out of this and it's been used with success in many on-line games. For ED that would translate in introduction of a multi-verse (or dual-verse if you will) system. Two separate mirrored galaxies, one yin and one yang for a full circle. Yin galaxy used for the solo and private mode and yang for the open mode. Players may chose what version they wanna play in at any-time but their actions would have effect only in the corresponding galaxy for that gaming session. Will rehash for clarity that they should be able to switch at their leisure between modes.
I've been following this thread for some time now and I'm well aware of FDevs stance on the matter but I honestly don't think that there is another way to resolve this so both sides of this debate will be satisfied.
Also it's worth mentioning that the, above mentioned, law system needs a lot of improvement or open mode would become a ghost town.

This comes from a car..(oups sorry mods ) avid solo player that have done just a few incursions in open but does realise that you can't play tennis alone at the concrete wall and pretend to be recognized as no. 1 ATP tennis player .

Or you could take inspiration from another game which should not be named here and area separate people with different play-styles but that would mean only one mode and I bet you'll have quite a stormy forum if you go that way.

Or you could just let it be and play it out .

I would agree that the above solution would be preferable to the current status, the downside of it would be that it splits the community further in an already vast universe (and relatively low player counts ~400k or so), therefore I would prefer my "incentive" to join the open world which rewards the additional risk to it.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Why illusions, noone will take solo trading away from you, ultimately give you more if you go into the open.

What is the problem with a carrot like that?

Because not everyone CAN go in to Open. That's the thing everyone is ignoring. Whilst it may be a choice for the vast majority of switching players, there are some people for which Solo is the only way to play the game. Making a carrot/stick by nerfing the modes will punish these people as they will not have the choice.

What don't you understand about that? I know why you will not respond to that.

Not forgetting of course that the current system is unfair to no-one seeing everyone is capable of switching. That fact that some people might not want to does not hold trumps to those who cannot switch modes. Unless of course selfishness rules, well then, hey. If the hat fits...

 

[Kerrec Snowmane]

If that is the main problem, then perhaps tweaking the spawn rates in open then.

YES! But every time we even TRY to mention a solution like this, it is taken as "OPEN players want to be better than SOLO". By doing that, you effectively have a difference between Open and Solo.

 

[Lestenio]

Why would having an opportunity to earn more than today be seen as "second class citizen"? It is the usual "more effort/more reward" type of mechanism.

Because in your original message you were advocating that solo players earn less than open players

The game should reward based on risk, so you could use a multiplier of sort (2x/whatever) if you trade in the open. Something that would be a sufficient reward to go out there and risk it.


Solo safe = lowest right and lowest profits, takes the longest to progress via trading (trading nerfed compared to standard solo at the moment)
Solo risky = current level of profits, anarchy systems in solo mode, real risk from NPC's
Open safe = higher level of profits, safe routes in the open, in stable systems with NPC escorts/or some other mechanic of protection, pays better than current setup
Open risky = highest levels of profits/highest risk multipliers, anarchy trading in the open, highest chance of profits, but with highest risk, ie you are on your own.

Play it 'your' way does not mean play it 'my' way or you'll be penalized.

 

[CMDR John Casey]

My proposal is to attach the mode to a CMDR profile. Once you start a career in solo, you stay in solo. Once you start a career in open, you stay in open. Hopefully we will have multiple profiles so one can play with more than one character.

 

[fademist]

Why illusions, noone will take solo trading away from you, ultimately give you more if you go into the open.

What is the problem with a carrot like that?

i dont like carrots...or other commanders....

 

[Lestenio]

My proposal is to attach the mode to a CMDR profile. Once you start a career in solo, you stay in solo. Once you start a career in open, you stay in open. Hopefully we will have multiple profiles so one can play with more than one character.

Who honestly knows what mode they want to play in until they have experienced the game?
What happens when a open player (or solo for that matter) wants to team up with his friends in a private group for a bit of fun?

 

[Stewart_]

My proposal is to attach the mode to a CMDR profile. Once you start a career in solo, you stay in solo. Once you start a career in open, you stay in open. Hopefully we will have multiple profiles so one can play with more than one character.

Non starter.

Not many people would want to start a new game just to change modes.

This actually wouldn't get more people into Open, if that's your goal.

 

[Jockey79]

YES! But every time we even TRY to mention a solution like this, it is taken as "OPEN players want to be better than SOLO". By doing that, you effectively have a difference between Open and Solo.

Right, now I've not seen anyone actually say the spawn rates were in open - if I had seen it, I'd have said about the spawns a lot sooner.
All I've seen for the past few pages was the idea of reducing value to solo (which solves nothing and causes problems) - which if you go through the history of the thread, has been a major theme of it.

I feel that dynamic spawn rates in CZ then could solve a lot of problems, and perhaps increase the number of NPCs per spawn, so something like - as long as it takes for 1 person to clear a CZ, the game will spawn enough NPCs to take the same time to clear their instance together (not sure if that makes sense, if anyone can word it better maybe??)

That way, there is no advantage as the ratio of NPCs to humans would stay the same, the only thing then is PvP in CZ, but open players signed up for that

 

[DrugaRunda]

I think part of the problem is that they are extremely risk adverse so they are against any kind of risk vs reward balance.

At the moment it is just much easier to earn credits in Solo mode, and I use it as well, as easy credits are just that - easy, why would you climb the tree to pick the apple when there is a bunch within the reach of your hand on a low hanging branch?

Some people play in the open it just for the sake of it, but in my view everyone would benefit if the emphasis would be shifted to MP (via some sort of incentive), as playing vs people is a lot more rewarding in principle comparing to playing vs AI.

Ultimately it is up to FD whether they want to emphasise that part of the game or not, in my view - they should, and if they do so, they should not do it with punishing Solo, but by rewarding Open. Ie more carrot and less stick, whatever form this ultimately takes, but having some multipliers applied to earnings for trading, mining and community goals between the two universes seem like a simple solution which is easy to implement and does not exclude anyone from having an impact on the universe.

 

[Erogenous Zones]

Because not everyone CAN go in to Open. That's the thing everyone is ignoring. Whilst it may be a choice for the vast majority of switching players, there are some people for which Solo is the only way to play the game. Making a carrot/stick by nerfing the modes will punish these people as they will not have the choice.

What don't you understand about that? I know why you will not respond to that.

Not forgetting of course that the current system is unfair to no-one seeing everyone is capable of switching. That fact that some people might not want to does not hold trumps to those who cannot switch modes. Unless of course selfishness rules, well then, hey. If the hat fits...

right now, there is an advantage to switching to solo.
The situation you describe is if there was a clear advantage to switching to open. I would agree that it would be unfair if solo was substantially less rewarding than open.
But, surely there is a middle point? You seem to totally ignore this possibility and base your opinion on wild conjecture.
All that people are looking for is balance. You want to preserve the imbalance.

 

[BigFW]

My (unstructured) thoughts

I'm primarily a group (having joined Mobious in the early days) player. I came on board at Beta expecting to play an offline mode,
if Elite was to be an online MMO as per the majority I would not have purchased. They are just not my thing.
On learning that there would be no online mode I decided to stick with it aware that there would still be a Solo mode for peeps
like me.

As time progressed it did feel good to know there are other CMDRS out there going about there business and while I did not want to
interact with them I enjoyed nodding my virtual head at their hollow icon. Hence joining Mobious.

I generally do not have a lot of time to play, maybe a few hours a week. I'm playing my own way doing trading, bounty hunting and
just started a bit of exploring. I have a mid upgraded ASP with 2 Mill in the bank. Total Assets approx 9Mill.

So thats my background.

ok, my take on a few things:-

On an overall level:

I beleive the way that instancing works nobody will ever see everyone else at a particular place at a particular time. So for
example a CMDR running cargo into Lave may face a greater or lesser risk depending on the quality of a Pirate player or AI in
their instance. Is this really any different to a CMDR being in Solo? Is Solo not just another instance with its own variation in
risk at that point in time? Even if it is an AI only risk.

If I understand correctly Xbone players will be affecting the same game as PC players but PC players will not be able to see them.

So again another level of Instancing in action.

If you want to increase the chance of playing with a particular type of player surely a Group is the way to go?

Solo is Easy Mode:

I'll concede that at the moment with current AI it is less risky than an Open Instance and even as the AI gets stronger (as I am
sure it will) it will likely remain less of a risk. But most games have a difficulty level that a player can select to complement
there play style or mood. Does it really matter?

Yes it matters! Solo play affects the same World as Open:

But does it really impact the individual? There are so many other people in other Open Instances that will never be seen is the
end result any different to those people being in Solo?

For Market price fluctuations is it any different than an AI economy in a single player game.

For People who want to blockade/own a system. I just don't think Elite is the game for that, in either game design or technical
design. We are just the little people. We may aid a faction but we cannot create one, I think?

For People who want a PvP Target Rich environment. Obviously I'm not one of those people and I really don't beleive Elite is about
persistant PvP kill counts etc etc. Yes, Solo will take potential targets away. But if there wasn't a Solo maybe those same
people would not have bought the game anyway.You cannot force people to play a PvP game if they do not want to.

Just to Note I do not condone combat logging.

Community Goals:

Rewards to the individual should be the same for all. I get the more risk more reward argument but at no point has FD advertised
that the play options will reflect that. Maybe there is compromise in any background weighting when it comes to things like Lugh.

So BigFW - You not man enough for Open?

Clearly not, though I think I can take the humiliation. I have played in open, it was ok. Though I've never been around the
'dreaded' Lave areas. I did bump into another commander in a CZ, we duked a bit but I was getting chewed up so made a break to
head back to the station, they followed and tried to get me before I got to the no firezone but failed. It was exhilirating in a
way but at the same time I wasn't wanted and we weren't in the CZ so why did they do it? I presume for the satisfaction of the
kill as I do not beleive there is any in game benefit for them? But at the end of the day he was playing the way he wanted.

Any Conclusion?

Hell No! In my opinion I think the below would help those that might want to play more/at all in Open
a) Greater consequence for criminals
b) System Secutiry status actually reflected in the System Security. Lave area should not be a hot bed of murderers and pirates.
The nearest Anarchy system should be.
c) Cargo Insurance - I don't mind dying and losing a bit of progress (which in Elite is measured in money) but losing for example 100t of
Palladium will likely take an hour or so to gain back in a T6. Personally I find that level of set back a
disinsentive to play. Obviously someone decided Ship Insurance was needed so why not Cargo? (I realise it could be on its way)

Thats me for now. Thank you if you managed to get to the end of this rambling wall of text!

 

[fademist]

At the moment it is just much easier to earn credits in Solo mode, and I use it as well, as easy credits are just that - easy, why would you climb the tree to pick the apple when there is a bunch within the reach of your hand on a low hanging branch?

Some people play in the open it just for the sake of it, but in my view everyone would benefit if the emphasis would be shifted to MP (via some sort of incentive), as playing vs people is a lot more rewarding in principle comparing to playing vs AI.

Ultimately it is up to FD whether they want to emphasise that part of the game or not, in my view - they should, and if they do so, they should not do it with punishing Solo, but by rewarding Open. Ie more carrot and less stick, whatever form this ultimately takes, but having some multipliers applied to earnings for trading, mining and community goals between the two universes seem like a simple solution which is easy to implement and does not exclude anyone from having an impact on the universe.

right in ur and other open ppl view...the others views i bet isnt valid ...

 

[Stewart_]

At the moment it is just much easier to earn credits in Solo mode, and I use it as well, as easy credits are just that - easy, why would you climb the tree to pick the apple when there is a bunch within the reach of your hand on a low hanging branch?

Some people play in the open it just for the sake of it, but in my view everyone would benefit if the emphasis would be shifted to MP (via some sort of incentive), as playing vs people is a lot more rewarding in principle comparing to playing vs AI.

Ultimately it is up to FD whether they want to emphasise that part of the game or not, in my view - they should, and if they do so, they should not do it with punishing Solo, but by rewarding Open. Ie more carrot and less stick, whatever form this ultimately takes, but having some multipliers applied to earnings for trading, mining and community goals between the two universes seem like a simple solution which is easy to implement and does not exclude anyone from having an impact on the universe.

in 'your' view everyone would benefit. Problem is , not everyone shares your view - again - another person wanting everyone else to play your way.

many people play solo because of lack of good Internet connection, in place of the offline game that was scrapped, couldn't give a damn about MP and rather play solo.

So what if solo 'may be' easier to earn credits? Your not in competition with me, and vice versa. Why do you even care?


Play open if that's what you want to do and be happy with it.

 

[Lenroc elisav]

I would agree that the above solution would be preferable to the current status, the downside of it would be that it splits the community further in an already vast universe (and relatively low player counts ~400k or so), therefore I would prefer my "incentive" to join the open world which rewards the additional risk to it.

I beg to differ, the "community" is already split and guys that would chose open even under actual conditions are pushed into solo in an attempt to be effective. If open will count only for open you don't have to switch mode to be on par with the guys fighting only NPCs (mostly applied to goals and rare trading).
To add bonuses for one mode over another I have no problem with because I can access all modes since I have a strong ISP but I think people that are restricted to solo will frown upon such a change. But I'll return the favor and say that I think would be an improvement over the status-quo.

 

[Jockey79]

...
Fixing that would make solo farming less efficient, especially in the starter ships.

Isn't FD looking in to this?

I recall reading that people were AFKing with turrets on fire at will or similar styles of play, in my personal opinion that is exploiting the game mechanics and not in the spirit of the game. But that is my opinion, nothing more

 

[Erogenous Zones]

in 'your' view everyone would benefit. Problem is , not everyone shares your view - again - another person wanting everyone else to play your way.

many people play solo because of lack of good Internet connection, in place of the offline game that was scrapped, couldn't give a damn about MP and rather play solo.

So what if solo 'may be' easier to earn credits? Your not in competition with me, and vice versa. Why do you even care?


Play open if that's what you want to do and be happy with it.

The problem is people switching for an advantage.
If you earn 50x in solo, than I do in open. I do not care in the slightest. If you want it. go for it.
But if you only went to solo to earn this enhanced profit, with the intention of using it in open, you are exploiting the feature. Similar if you switch to solo for more influence in a CG.
but for some reason, some players in solo see it as an affront to their dignity if any consideration is made to changing other game modes.

 

[Antmax]

Someone posted a postmortem on Lugh with good, bad and ugly sections.

He ended up playing half and half where solo and open is concerned. I found The Ugly most informative after having read much of this thread previously.

The Ugly


Holy crap, the instancing. I did about about half the event in Open, half in Solo, but I still spent quite a few hours in open play, looking for commanders to fight or smugglers to scan. Most of the time, I couldn't find CSG wings in the combat zones I visited - and then came to reddit to see CSG commanders complaining about the very same thing. This has been reported at length by both sides. There's already enough controversy about Solo affecting community goals, we don't need instancing to further inhibit PvP for those who want it.


The performance in Open, especially in supercruise, was atrocious. A few times the game decided to spawn dozens of NPCs in supercruise (got to love that "72 new contacts" message), completely killing my FPS. Not fun.

 

[Jockey79]

But if you only went to solo to earn this enhanced profit, with the intention of using it in open, you are exploiting the feature. Similar if you switch to solo for more influence in a CG..

I get what you are saying - finally. But this is down to personal ethics not a problem with mode switching (excluding the spawn rate issue above of course, that sounds like it needs looking at as well as semi afk or fully afk farmers).

So if afk / semi afk farmers are dealt with and dynamic spawn rates introduced - how does that sound?

No nerf to solo values, no buff to open values - 10k bonds are still 10k in bonds in any mode, but at least you have more frequent things to shoot *with* other people about.

Is that a middle ground?
Has this dealt with CG and CZ?

 

[Kerrec Snowmane]

Right, now I've not seen anyone actually say the spawn rates were in open - if I had seen it, I'd have said about the spawns a lot sooner.
All I've seen for the past few pages was the idea of reducing value to solo (which solves nothing and causes problems) - which if you go through the history of the thread, has been a major theme of it.

I feel that dynamic spawn rates in CZ then could solve a lot of problems, and perhaps increase the number of NPCs per spawn, so something like - as long as it takes for 1 person to clear a CZ, the game will spawn enough NPCs to take the same time to clear their instance together (not sure if that makes sense, if anyone can word it better maybe??)

That way, there is no advantage as the ratio of NPCs to humans would stay the same, the only thing then is PvP in CZ, but open players signed up for that

Because the moderators have decided to dump everything that resembles a solo vs group vs open argument into this thread, there are SEVERAL different conversations going on at the same time. There are a lot of pro-open players that are saying things and making, in my opinion, bad suggestions, even though I would probably be considered a "pro-open" player by everyone else.
.
Regardless of the specifics, and ignoring those that want the different modes abolished, many people are advocating having a difference between solo and open, and many others are absolutely refusing on principle, regardless of the merit of the suggestions. Having a "different" spawn rate for Open players to account for the fact that instances are shared (something that would equally apply to group mode) is still a "difference". And instead of debating what is and is not a good idea, evolving those with merit or offering suggestions and solutions, most people who want status quo are just polluting this thread with "no no no no! You're being selfish for wanting change! Go away!" Which helps nothing, and guarantees the developers will never ever read this thread and ensures the problem will fester and we'll still be posting in a 10000 post threadnaught a year from now about the very same issues that still plague the game.