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

[Joe Spivey]

Well my experience in CG shows that: Combat Zones are more profitable (and enjoyable) in solo than in open - no problem with that. Just in Lugh, combat farming in solo allowed profits at least 4 times those in open. The problem arises in a scenario like the following one: commander X and Y have the same ship. X plays in open and is struggling to afford good weapons/shields/engines. Y goes to solo, farms and then come back to open with a better equipped ship in the same time. I think this is not fair.

Another example: faction A (I'm talking of players group that do role playing) tries to blockade a space station where faction B tries to deliver some cargo. Players in B pass to solo to elude the blockade. The result of the CG is therefore independent from the effort by faction A.

it seems that the problem is related only to CGs anyway, so probably that is what should be fixed and not the modes of play.

While I agree that CG present their own problems and DO need a solution, stopping mode changing to fix it seems like taking a sledge hammer to it... and I'm not sure it would totally solve it anyway.

But as to your more general objections:

"commander X and Y have the same ship. X plays in open and is struggling to afford good weapons/shields/engines. Y goes to solo, farms and then come back to open with a better equipped ship in the same time. I think this is not fair."

And:

"faction A (I'm talking of players group that do role playing) tries to blockade a space station where faction B tries to deliver some cargo. Players in B pass to solo to elude the blockade. The result of the CG is therefore independent from the effort by faction A."

With the first objection you need to bear in mind that player Y, instead of going to solo mode could just as easily go to a less 'player intense' are of Open and do exactly the same thing. Which raises the question, how would you even know HOW a player came by his credits? Besides this there is also the great big fact that player X can ALSO go into solo and do exactly the same as player Y. You see, it's all about choice. Both players have the same choice and it is up to them how the exercise it. But what they should not do is to try and limit the choice of another player just because it is contrary to the play style YOU choose.

With the second objection, this is much simpler. Player blockades are impossible BY DESIGN. Even if this were not the case, preventing player B from switching to solo would not solve anything. The instancing system alone makes player blockades just as impossible.

 

[fademist]

Well my experience in CG shows that: Combat Zones are more profitable (and enjoyable) in solo than in open - no problem with that. Just in Lugh, combat farming in solo allowed profits at least 4 times those in open. The problem arises in a scenario like the following one: commander X and Y have the same ship. X plays in open and is struggling to afford good weapons/shields/engines. Y goes to solo, farms and then come back to open with a better equipped ship in the same time. I think this is not fair.

Another example: faction A (I'm talking of players group that do role playing) tries to blockade a space station where faction B tries to deliver some cargo. Players in B pass to solo to elude the blockade. The result of the CG is therefore independent from the effort by faction A.

it seems that the problem is related only to CGs anyway, so probably that is what should be fixed and not the modes of play.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



If the exploit you found is unfair and probably was not foreseen by the game designers, yes.

only thing that was designed that way stop trying to searching for exploits where isnt any wont make ur opinion more/less valid...

 

[SiriusSeven]

You may want to Google that and revise this part - took me 10 seconds to find a list of game that let you level up in PvE then move to PvP

don't quote snipe

I wrote:

Other MMOs have solved the problem: separate worlds for separate modes, and no force on earth allows a PvE transfer to PvP.

Other != All

World of Warcraft (at least when I played, not sure if this is still the case) allowed *one way* paid transfers from PvP to PvE. I know because I moved my main character to a PvE group.

A single example forms an existence proof, and is all I need to back up that claim.

 

[Jockey79]

It also says that each group/mode can have different rules, which might give them the leeway they need to tweak some of the major fallout (like community goals). Interesting.

If you read it in context, it talks about groups with "different rules" then states disruptive players can be moved (aka dumped in to another instance with different rules to everyone else, with like minded folk)

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I didn't talk about groups. I'm fine with that.



My goal is to have a fair game, not to eliminate a mode or boost another one. For me, gaining advantages (as money, or any other way) in one mode (no matter if solo or open) to use them in the other should be considered as cheating. Period. I don't want to bring people in open neither eliminate a mode of play, I'm just saying we should separate careers.

Part of the design of being able to switch modes was so to allow for people who perceived that the other players were griefing him/her (e.g. murder for no stated reason) to bypass those players in another mode and then return to Open. That would be an advantage as you have stated.

What you describe as cheating is described by the designers of the game as fair game play. Those advocating blockades would cry at this, but it's there for a reason.

Seeing that some people take their laptop and play in hotels when on assignment (Solo would be the only mode where uPNP is generally not available in hotels and bandwidth is usually capped) and in Open at home, bringing in separate saves would mean less people would play less of the time as the game would generally become less accessible as a result of that change.

No amount of crying and stamping of feet, anxious hand-wringing or gnashing of teeth will change that design. You'll just wear your teeth out. Then again, I have a good dentist friend. So if you want, I can recommend you (for a percentage.)

 

[Jockey79]

don't quote snipe

I wrote:



Other != All

World of Warcraft (at least when I played, not sure if this is still the case) allowed *one way* paid transfers from PvP to PvE. I know because I moved my main character to a PvE group.

A single example forms an existence proof, and is all I need to back up that claim.

And Wow was top of my Google search results, they allow PvE <-> PvP transfers now, as long as you pay for them, you can do what you want.

[Edit] Also a game called Wildstar also does this type of transfer, so there ARE forces on earth that allow it.
(NB, I love Google )

 

[SiriusSeven]

And Wow was top of my Google search results, they allow PvE <-> PvP transfers now, as long as you pay for them

it's interesting to see how that has evolved

(NB, I love Google )

So do I:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=116233

 

[Stormprooter]

Seeing that some people take their laptop and play in hotels when on assignment (Solo would be the only mode where uPNP is generally not available in hotels and bandwidth is usually capped) and in Open at home, bringing in separate saves would mean less people would play less of the time as the game would generally become less accessible as a result of that change.

I resemble this remark very closely. I am away in hotels quite often with work, typically, hotel wifi is advertised at around the 256kb/s mark, but even that is an optimistic ideal. Dropouts and painfully slow bandwidth are common in this scenario, considering there are probably 100 or more other folks all using the same internet connection. So solo is the only reliable mode to go for - even private group is a no-no (tried it), all that happens is my crappy connection ends up adversely affecting everyone else with instancing, messaging, and wings. I would be a bit peeved if I could not carry on with Solo while working away, then coming back to open when I am at home.

Is that cheating?

 

[Jockey79]

So do I:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=116233

Okay, now that needs to be a sticky on EVERY board here !
+1

(darn it, I'd +1 but it wont let me yet... will do as soon as I can)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Other != All

World of Warcraft (at least when I played, not sure if this is still the case) allowed *one way* paid transfers from PvP to PvE. I know because I moved my main character to a PvE group.

A single example forms an existence proof, and is all I need to back up that claim.

Indeed - with the development of Shroud of the Avatar, it seems that Elite: Dangerous will be joined by another multi-player game that affords players freedom of choice as to how they want to play the game:

Shroud of the Avatar: Forsaken Virtues is a fantasy RPG that combines a single player narrative with a sandbox MMO created by a team that includes: Richard “Lord British” Garriott the creator of the Ultima series, Starr Long the Director of Ultima Online, and Tracy Hickman the author of Dragonlance
Episodic Content: Five episodes of virtue based stories created by Richard Garriott and Tracy Hickman; supported by prequel novels starting with Blade of the Avatar.
Single Player Offline Mode: Players will adventure through over 40 hours of story in an interactive world where their choices during ethical paradoxes have consequences.
Selective Multiplayer Modes: You can also play with everyone in a single world with three different online modes (Single Player, Friends Only, and Open).
Classless Character System: Vast customization options with hundreds of skills and spells in over 20 different skill trees.
Player Driven Economy: Deep crafting system where the best items are made by players and player items are the main source of loot found in the game.
Skillful Combat: A new way to prepare and fight in an RPG by building custom decks of skills and dynamically activating them in combat.
PVP: Consensual with Open PVP flags, zones, and Guild Warfare.
Pay Once to Play: No subscription fees. Each episode (released approximately annually) is a one time fee and everything in the game can be purchased with in game gold that can be earned (except for some exclusive backer rewards).
Player Housing: Non instanced, finite, and embedded in the world with multiple group living options.
Social: Full Guild System, Highly Active Community and Player Owned Towns.
Crowd Sourced & Funded: Support the project by contributing content (and receive compensation) or by pledging (and receive exclusive rewards).
Open Development: Players help shape the game by giving feedback on monthly early access releases, videos, weekly updates, blog postings, forums, chat, etc.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Since there is a high level of instancing there is also a high probability of avoiding blockades any way in open. Elite really isn't designed for Eve type strategies such as blockades.

A "high probability" is not, a 100% guarantee like solo. Some chance to blockade beats zero chance to blockade.

 

[CMDR John Casey]

With the first objection you need to bear in mind that player Y, instead of going to solo mode could just as easily go to a less 'player intense' are of Open and do exactly the same thing. Which raises the question, how would you even know HOW a player came by his credits? Besides this there is also the great big fact that player X can ALSO go into solo and do exactly the same as player Y. You see, it's all about choice. Both players have the same choice and it is up to them how the exercise it. But what they should not do is to try and limit the choice of another player just because it is contrary to the play style YOU choose.

So you are suggesting that if everyone is free to jump, I should do it too. Or not do it but accept the consequences. Well I'm thinking why the hell I'm in open then.

With the second objection, this is much simpler. Player blockades are impossible BY DESIGN. Even if this were not the case, preventing player B from switching to solo would not solve anything. The instancing system alone makes player blockades just as impossible.

That's true - so the problem is that if they want to foster PvP another kind of interaction should be proposed.

 

[ianw]

A "high probability" is not, a 100% guarantee like solo. Some chance to blockade beats zero chance to blockade.

The thing is though if you really keep on your toes you can get past players in open.

In SC if anything gets too close just drop out before they can get a tether on you - back in - repeat if needed till you get to the station safe zone..

If we had a long distance between SC exit and safe zone that would be a different matter of course..

 

[Jockey79]

Indeed - with the development of Shroud of the Avatar, it seems that Elite: Dangerous will be joined by another multi-player game that affords players freedom of choice as to how they want to play the game:

Funny how *some* around here keep saying ED is a "bad design" and "broken" - yet other games are following it, funny that.... like when Free to Play gaming came out, *some* said that wouldn't work, and how many F2P games are there now?

 

[Stewart_]

A "high probability" is not, a 100% guarantee like solo. Some chance to blockade beats zero chance to blockade.

Regardless, Elite was not designed for player initiated Blockades.

You want to penalize the entire solo / group player base due to the actions of the minority that may switch game modes to avoid situations like you mention. I don't think thats the way to go.

 

[CMDR John Casey]

only thing that was designed that way stop trying to searching for exploits where isnt any wont make ur opinion more/less valid...

My opinion can't be valid since it is an opinion. An argument can be valid, and since you and others said that the designers did it this way, then mine is not. I will get used to it. No problem.

 

[Joe Spivey]

So you are suggesting that if everyone is free to jump, I should do it too. Or not do it but accept the consequences. Well I'm thinking why the hell I'm in open then.


That's true - so the problem is that if they want to foster PvP another kind of interaction should be proposed.

All I am saying is that you have the choice... you could also do the other thing if you want to stay in open... just go to somewhere less player intensive.

If players try and create a blockade there will always be players who want to try and run that blockade. There is the PvP. But for players who don't want to play the blockade runner game, they have the choice not to. And choice about how you play is what Ed is all about.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Regardless, Elite was not designed for Blockades.

You want to penalize the entire solo / group player base due to the actions of the minority that may switch game modes to avoid situations like you mention. I don't think thats the way to go.

IIRC in one of the Q & As with DB last year, the question was asked about player blockades and players using mode switching to get past them.

DB responded that that was fine, and as designed, and that any "official" blockades would be AI driven and as such would exist in all modes, so swapping groups would not dodge a "proper" blockade.
(in theory an AI blokade would actually be easy mode in groups/all as you can team up where as in solo you may get no help).

 

[Stewart_]

in one of the Q & As with DB last year, the question was asked about player blockades and mode switching.

DB responded that that was fine, and as designed, and that any "official" blockades would be AI driven and as such would exist in all modes, so swapping groups would not dodge a "proper" blockade.

This is in game blockades - put in place by FD, not player initiated, which what the OP was talking about.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

The thing is though if you really keep on your toes you can get past players in open.

In SC if anything gets too close just drop out before they can get a tether on you - back in - repeat if needed till you get to the station safe zone..

If we had a long distance between SC exit and safe zone that would be a different matter of course..

So because it's possible for some, to use intelligence and caution, to run a blockade, everyone should be able to use a game mechanic to do it?