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

[Robert Maynard]

The £1000 prize for First to Elite, was only available to OPEN players............period.
.
They just released "Wings!".......what did they release for Solo players?.....hmmm?...........
.
If you can't see where this is going, I refer you back to all those waiting for their promised "off line mode".........just follow the trail of tears........

It seems to be going in the direction of introducing game features discussed in the DDF - Wings are the implementation of the "Alliance" feature discussed in the Player Groups threads.

 

[SiriusSeven]

Agreed. With the exception of the race to elite, FD have not shown favouritism for any mode yet -- wings are available in private groups after all. Wings in Solo require additional game elements (cooperative NPCs) and may be coming in the future

 

[Robert Maynard]

Agreed. With the exception of the race to elite, FD have not shown favouritism for any mode yet -- wings are available in private groups after all. Wings in Solo require additional game elements (cooperative NPCs) and may be coming in the future

NPC wingmen have certainly been discussed in the DDF.

 

[Chris M Fortune]

For me the whole issue is realy between PvE and PvP, playing in solo or a private PvE group is to a large extent the same as far as player risk is concerned and these are the two modes that I choose to use at the moment.

The reason I stay out of open is very simply the insignificant detrimental effect that killing another player has. If a player is choosing to play as a pirate then they should have ALL the consequences of that choice envisaged on them. Simply by being able to dock anywhere and clear your name for a very small fee (in comparison to the cost to the player loosing their ship/cargo) is a deal breaker for me. It is not that I am a lousy combat pilot that is holding me out of open play but the fact that the consequences of playing as an aggressive player are very small in comparison to those I face as a non-aggressive one.

If there was a persistence of fine/bounty specifically for the destruction of another players ship (outside of defined combat zones) then this would go a long way to redress that balance and perhaps add an additional level for the bounty hunting brigade as the would then have an additional cohort of potential player targets whom they can pursue in their legitimate game play.

 

[Walt Kerman]

NPC wingmen have certainly been discussed in the DDF.

Yeah, I've been looking forward to those.

 

[DrugaRunda]

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...

Didn't respond as I had to go.

The direction of game development is not about any kind of justice or fairness, it is simply - what will make the game a better one of the long term, hopefully getting a larger player base and make more money ultimately. While some people may not be able to join "Open" on technical grounds, it is just bad luck, that's all. I guess it is even worse for those who do not have internet connection at all, as they cannot play at all contrary to what was even originally promised.

It was a decision by FD, same with this one, we are just discussing our views what kind of solution do we as a community see as being preferable.

My view is that Open is better/healthier over the long run, and also the the multipliers on earnings are a neat idea on how to incentivize to make it more appealing to keep it viable.

 

[Jorlin]

Didn't respond as I had to go.

The direction of game development is not about any kind of justice or fairness, it is simply - what will make the game a better one of the long term, hopefully getting a larger player base and make more money ultimately. While some people may not be able to join "Open" on technical grounds, it is just bad luck, that's all. I guess it is even worse for those who do not have internet connection at all, as they cannot play at all contrary to what was even originally promised.

It was a decision by FD, same with this one, we are just discussing our views what kind of solution do we as a community see as being preferable.

My view is that Open is better/healthier over the long run, and also the the multipliers on earnings are a neat idea on how to incentivize to make it more appealing to keep it viable.

there are other reasons but just technical ones that practically make it impossible for someone to play in open.

and "forcing" people to open play will not improve "open".
some will leave (which lowers the overall playerbase -> less money for the game), others will try to ruin open just because solo was ruined.

 

[DrugaRunda]

Why should it matter if FD are treating all as equal?

For them it certainly matters. Which game mode has more of a long-term future, ie is the fight vs AI the better experience, is it about equal, or is the universe where players interact a more interesting universe which will in draw more interest form the existing playerbase and new players over the long term.

To me that answer is clear - ie, Open, but as this thread demonstrates, this is not the opinion of all the players.

 

[Jorlin]

To me that answer is clear - ie, Open, but as this thread demonstrates, this is not the opinion of all the players.

True.
So why not put the "open only" idea into the trashcan and find a real solution?

 

[fademist]

there are other reasons but just technical ones that practically make it impossible for someone to play in open.

and "forcing" people to open play will not improve "open".
some will leave (which lowers the overall playerbase -> less money for the game), others will try to ruin open just because solo was ruined.

not to mention that the ones that will leave could make more dmg on income throw bad stuff for the company/game and advise to friends that thinking of buying the game not to buy it

 

[DrugaRunda]

You do realise that a wing of 4 players in open going into a conflict zone and finding no other players is exactly the same as those 4 doing it in solo instead? I'm yet to go into a conflict zone and find another player (probably due to the quality of my internet affecting the matchmaking). You want to nerf the contribution of players in open who simply don't find themselves matched with other players (due to the way instancing works) as well perhaps? This false talk of risk differences is old and just plain wrong when you accept that there are plenty if people in open who also have the same supposedly low risk experience that you accuse solo players of having. You want to extend your same logic to those players too perhaps? Some people need to learn how the game works.

It is not bogus, if the technical glitches are eventually fixed, you will have a world full of other players in the open as intended even if it takes a long time to get to that stage, for many players the game already works that way - if you are in the open you are playing with other people and not just AI.

 

[Dave1235]

You know what, bored of this. Got a better suggestion.

As I can only play for 3 - 4 hours a week due to real life commitments, anyone who plays more than 4 hours a week cannot contribute to CG.
After all, online players earn more than offline players don't they. And it is not fair those spending time with family, or in bed for the night.
Why should someone who plays 10+ hours a week be able to contribute more than someone who cannot.

Or how about girls that play, statistically more boys than girls play games - so it is unfair the boys earn more than the girls and that is not fair to the girls, so unless the genders become equal, no boy should earn CG credit.

Blondes Vs Brunette
Tall Vs Short
Rich Vs Poor

You can cut the player demographic in a lot of ways, so go on - play your dangerous forum games - sooner or later, you'll get stung by it.

Good suggestion, wrong metric IMHO, let me suggest another (I am sure many more will follow ).

I think this is more logical, based on not only investment made in the game, but also the time played in general & would better reflect what people bought, at the time they bought it and what the were sold at that point in time.

I will comment on rich vs poor, but only as a frame of reference, I consider myself in the middle somewhere, I will set aside the fact that I had to buy a new pc to play the game (AMD £600 inc vat, old PC which worked fine was 10 year old & still working for the previous space game I was playing, PVP MMO I had played for 3 + years and was happy with, until I saw ED that is!, £100 for the game (the most relevant amount), after playing ED with KB/M for 3/4 months I also bought a hotas (£35) and a few months after an ED tracker (~£35). The last two on the basis I had been playing the game for months, I was happy how the game worked & I wanted to increase my enjoyment.

Let me suggest another metric that in my humble opinion is fair to me (and many others I am sure) although some might not like it.

Community goals (or game in general?, people want to balance it, you pick, lol)

KS ? ... you pick, there would be no game without you people, unlimited time to play, thank you for backing this game, thank you for risking your cash to make our dream game happen, without you people there would be no ED, I & many other early backers have waited 30 years for this to happen, I wish I knew about it at KS, I would have backed it too.
Alpha (paid £200+) allowed to play 40 hours a week.
Beta (paid £100) allowed to play 20 hours a week.
Gamma / launch (paid £35-£50) allowed to play 7-10 hours a week.

Community goals rewards (like insurance. You do know Alpha's & Beta's get better insurance too right?, as reward for backing early, I just wanted to point out how unfair that is too in case anyone who joined us yesterday had run out of things to complain are broken in the game!)

KS * 10 income for player & added to goal
Alpha * 6 income for player & added to goal
Beta *3 income for player & added to goal
Gamma / launch * 1 income for player & added to goal

(obviously the same modifiers in open/solo/groups, they are all the same game / modes / background after all, the metric is based on making the game happen, based on contribution to development of the game, weighted in favour of the people that backed the game in KS / early stages, I included PB and open beta for simplicity, then Gamma/ launch).

Vote bias for FD to consider any changes (to their game!, not that this will make any difference, they have said from the start they are making the game they want to play!, and I bought it because I want to play the game they advertised last year, after researching it first). I would not have bought the new PC etc if the research I did before buying suggested there was something in the game that I really hated or would be a game breaker for me).

I am interested why other people would buy a game they don't like & try to change after they bought it, there seem to be quite a few people that have done this recently, I get that some people bought a game based on the trailer & don't like it for x/y/z but so many people (well not so many, there's ~ 400k players, 41k registered forum members & < 50 people complaining, you do the math.

KS counts for 6 votes
Alpha counts for 4 votes
Beta counts for 2 votes
Gamma / launch 1 vote


Is that fair?.

 

[Jorlin]

It is not bogus, if the technical glitches are eventually fixed, you will have a world full of other players in the open as intended even if it takes a long time to get to that stage, for many players the game already works that way - if you are in the open you are playing with other people and not just AI.

It might sound strange to you... but this exactly what some people (including myself) don't want. I don't want to meet anyone. I don't even want the slightest chance to meet another Commander. For me "player interaction" is the worst thing that (at the moment) could happen in a game that i try to enjoy.
Strange thing is: the only thing i'm missing in solo is PvP *g*

 

[DrugaRunda]

The middle point is this: The Open player is more than able to take advantage of Solo. If you feel there is some advantage there, go play in Solo for the advantage. Switch back when you get bored. It's your choice. Open players don't need to nerf another mode in order to get the advantage. All I'm saying is that it's not the same for certain Solo players for two good reasons: Hardware or Disability.

If you ask for a nerf to Solo or a buff to Open as a carrot or a stick to try and get people in to open what you are effectively doing is discriminating against the disabled. In any other circumstances you would be breaking the law. In this discussion you would just simply be ignorant or, the worst choice deliberately trolling disabled people "because you can and the rest of the world can go take a long walk of a short pier for all you care about other people."

This is not some real-life public office accessibility issue where you need to cater to the disabled, or an OS release. It is a game, and the participants are just as able on both sides of the fence - however if the larger part of the community considers Open to be a more engaging more, if (most importantly) the devs think that Open has a better potential to keep players engaged over the long term, they may want to consider to make it more appealing to participate in.

At the moment Solo is easy mode, therefore it is incentivized by default, I along many others think it should be the other way around - make the hard mode earn you more, and therefore you will have more players in that part of the universe, which should be beneficial in the long term, in my view anyhow.

 

[Jorlin]

This is not some real-life public office accessibility issue where you need to cater to the disabled, or an OS release. It is a game, and the participants are just as able on both sides of the fence - however if the larger part of the community considers Open to be a more engaging more, if (most importantly) the devs think that Open has a better potential to keep players engaged over the long term, they may want to consider to make it more appealing to participate in.

At the moment Solo is easy mode, therefore it is incentivized by default, I along many others think it should be the other way around - make the hard mode earn you more, and therefore you will have more players in that part of the universe, which should be beneficial in the long term, in my view anyhow.

Why would you want ME in open? Seriously, why?

 

[fademist]

This is not some real-life public office accessibility issue where you need to cater to the disabled, or an OS release. It is a game, and the participants are just as able on both sides of the fence - however if the larger part of the community considers Open to be a more engaging more, if (most importantly) the devs think that Open has a better potential to keep players engaged over the long term, they may want to consider to make it more appealing to participate in.

At the moment Solo is easy mode, therefore it is incentivized by default, I along many others think it should be the other way around - make the hard mode earn you more, and therefore you will have more players in that part of the universe, which should be beneficial in the long term, in my view anyhow.

and is strange that the complaining ppl is less than 50 ....and still that less than 50 ppl is right ....according to your selfs...

 

[DrugaRunda]

there are other reasons but just technical ones that practically make it impossible for someone to play in open.

and "forcing" people to open play will not improve "open".
some will leave (which lowers the overall playerbase -> less money for the game), others will try to ruin open just because solo was ruined.

No one is saying that Solo should be ruined, if anything it should make more people consider Open, but in no way force them to play it.

 

[Jorlin]

No one is saying that Solo should be ruined, if anything it should make more people consider Open, but in no way force them to play it.

"Making them consider open" sounds like "making the game less enjoyable for them in solo".
and making it less enjoyable is exactly ruining it...

 

[DrugaRunda]

True.
So why not put the "open only" idea into the trashcan and find a real solution?

From last few pages, I have read about several proposed "solutions".

1. Not change anything (I am not in favour)
2. Split the universe into two separate instances, Solo and Open ( not my fav solution, but better than current)
3. Keep both universes interaction, but incentivize play in Open more (my preferred)

I do not think that scrapping Solo is the way forward either.

 

[fademist]

"Making them consider open" sounds like "making the game less enjoyable for them in solo".
and making it less enjoyable is exactly ruining it...

jor i think u waste ur time trying to speak with them..all they do is the same argue over and over with other words lol