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

[CMDR John Casey]

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.

You convinced me. Keep modes as they are by now.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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

No the question to DB covered both... ie the ability to drop to solo/private group to get around an unsanctioned player blockade is as designed, because by design players CANT forcibly blockade a system.

sure, do it for fun, and role players in ALL can enjoy the benifit of it, but not everyone wants player blockades and for those, the modes are a design *feature* not a bug/exploit.

Now, it is perfectly acceptable to not like this, we are all different and would be dull if not, but it isnt broken, it is just a feature which does not appeal to you (just like eve and also lane mobas like dota 2 I loath. I would never expect them to change however.)

 

[emacinnes]

I wan't terribly bothered about this whole mode switching in the game proper, as just leaving it on open play and wandering 100LY away leads to a great sea of nobody anyway. The biggest impact for me was the community goal combat zones. Overall, Lugh was extremely laggy, and I had to switch to Solo to be able to even attempt to do this goal properly. Occasionally, in the afternoons, it was more manageable, 2-3 human players and so on, and the opportunity for multiplayer was there, but technically, the game was straining heavily for me more often than not, especially in supercruise shuttling between Lugh 5 and Balantin station, and 2 lag-based deaths, so a solo mode was really the only way I could sensibly contribute to the multiplayer mission. If the game were to remove or restrict the solo/group mode thing, then I'd basically have to miss out on it completely .

 

[Robert Maynard]

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

If players want to instigate an unofficial blockade in a game that has included, from the outset, game features that allow players to choose not to participate in the blockade running game then that is up to the instigators of the blockade - at least they know that any player trying to run the blockade wants to do so (because if they didn't then they could go somewhere else or change game mode) - more consensual that way, no?

 

[ianw]

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?

I'm not saying that - that's FD's call and at the moment it appears computer says yes.

Just pointing out that with the current design, player blockades are not really doable as even in open participation is more or less voluntary.

Now we have shield boosters - armour and shield cells most ships can probably survive a pre-jump assault as they leave the safe zone - once you're away a couple of jump/drops and there really isn't anyway you can be caught.

 

[Seonid]

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

This is me. I'm still waiting for a valid explanation of why my game play with the one single available character should be dictated by people who didn't buy the game for me, let alone pay my wages.

 

[SiriusSeven]

This is me. I'm still waiting for a valid explanation of why my game play with the one single available character should be dictated by people who didn't buy the game for me, let alone pay my wages.

Make no mistake. Gameplay is dictated by FD, not by us players with contrarian opinions. I am not conceited enough to believe otherwise. I can still voice my opinion though.

(and fwiw, FD don't pay your salary as far as I know, so your game play is routinely decided by those who don't pay your wages)

 

[withnail]

I understood what he meant though.

 

[Seonid]

(and fwiw, FD don't pay your salary as far as I know

Didn't say that they did though, did I? The people who send me away on the jobs where I am required to use rubbish hotel wifi, which mandates Solo, do. At home, I'm in Open as I have been since Gamma and it's where I prefer to play if I am able.

 

[SiriusSeven]

Alright. It's time for me to recuse myself from this thread. I don't like how I get when I'm in here. There are plenty of great aspects of this game, and positive threads in which to contribute. It depresses me to no end that this single thread now has more posts than the "Guides and Tutorials" subforum, the "Roleplay" subforum and the "International Discussion" subforum.

Before departing to greener pastures (threads), I just wanted to say:

Robert Maynard and a few others, we may not agree on this aspect of the game, but I have the utmost respect for you. Your comments are timely, logically sound, and supported by evidence when needed. It keeps me on my toes. Keep it up.

 

[Robert Maynard]

All the best in your sabbatical.

.... you'll be back! (I'd wager)

 

[Anton Cano]

Then what was written is contradictory - on the one hand "Don't get rid of anything." and at the same time say "don't mix them" (meaning the three game modes).

The modes are intertwined and have been from the beginning - simply different settings on the matchmaking system that places all players into the same galactic background simulation - and all players have the ability to switch between the three game modes as they please.

Offline single-player mode was also a standard feature of the game... until it wasn't. Things can and should change when they're pointed out to be flawed or damaging to the game's integrity or mechanics, as FD seems to believe the current structure with CGs are. Rather than focusing specifically on CGs, they should be looking at the bigger picture. The problem with CGs is a symptom of the larger disease that stems from using a character save and multiplayer structure that allows people to avoid risk in a game where part of the draw is that it is risky.

 

[ianw]

Offline single-player mode was also a standard feature of the game... until it wasn't. Things can should change when they're pointed out to be flawed or damaging to the game's integrity or mechanics, as FD seems to believe the current structure with CGs are. Rather than focusing specifically on CGs, they should be looking at the bigger picture. The problem with CGs is a symptom of the larger disease that stems from using a character save and multiplayer structure that allows people to avoid risk in a game where part of the draw is that it is risky.

But it's only part of the draw for some people. As you said - FD need to look at the big picture - which includes the people for whom that isn't a draw..

 

[Jockey79]

Offline single-player mode was also a standard feature of the game... until it wasn't. Things can and should change when they're pointed out to be flawed or damaging to the game's integrity or mechanics,

Well said, so FD need to remove PvP completely. More people want PvE than PvP, and the PvP crowd are damaging to the game / community and their arguments are generally flawed.
So, if we remove PvP, the game gets better, the forums get better, win - win for most of use

(See how that line of reasoning can cut both ways)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Offline single-player mode was also a standard feature of the game... until it wasn't. Things can and should change when they're pointed out to be flawed or damaging to the game's integrity or mechanics, as FD seems to believe the current structure with CGs are. Rather than focusing specifically on CGs, they should be looking at the bigger picture. The problem with CGs is a symptom of the larger disease that stems from using a character save and multiplayer structure that allows people to avoid risk in a game where part of the draw is that it is risky.

Of course things can and do change - not everything that was expected to be in the game has proven to be possible within the constraints of game development. The three game modes, however, have been implemented as stated, as has the ability to mode switch.

To compare mode switching to a disease is quite interesting. To say that "part of the draw is that it is risky" is quite correct - however part of the attraction for some players is the ability to self-select the level of risk posed by other players through their free choice of game mode. I realise that this is probably anathema to players who would prefer that everyone was either locked in a single game mode or at least restricted to one game mode but Frontier chose, from the outset, not to restrict players in that manner.

 

[Javert]

The general argument about solo / open etc will always have detractors, but this is the way the game was designed from the beginning and I agree with those people making that point. All of the design decisions need to take into account that mode switching is allowed, and therefore any player to player interaction is voluntary. All other design decisions should be contingent upon that.

That said, I'm not sure whether I'm totally opposed to the idea of having time limits on switching from open to solo - i.e. if you're in open, you can't switch to solo until a 10 minute cool down timer has elapsed. I don't necessarily see this as a terrible crime against humanity, but I'm also not sure whether it would solve any of the issues being discussed.

I do not think that mode switching should be banned, contstrained to one commander, or whatever as some have suggested.

I also don't think the galaxies should be, or will be, split. It's been very clear that FD want one overarching narrative for the galaxy which is consistent across all modes and platforms. Again, this is a key tower of the game design and all other design must take this into account.

Now, regarding the community goals specifically, I hope that no sledgehammer is needed here.

1. The way Community goals are set and measured can be tweaked, and if necessary separate leaderboard could be maintained by platform and mode, but without impacting on the overall ability of the individual to play the game. If the control of a whole system or some other major story arc is at stake, on balance, I'm still not convinced that this should extend as far as the scoring system being weighted in favour of those in open play. I think that should be a last resort if it can't be solved any other way, and it can be proved that the situation is leading to the majority of players playing in solo during CG. My guess is that for a lot of players the fun is in the taking part and the individual battles, rather than the final result.

2. The way that NPC characters spawn can also be looked at, and the design intent should be clear around whether a wing of 4 players in a conflict zone should expect to get 4 times as many NPC targets per hour as a single player alone. If so, the average number of targets per player could be the same, so there would be no advantage.

3. As others have pointed out, player blockades were specifically designed to be impossible to enforce fully. Any blockade will be consensual on both sides, so that any player running the blockade in open is actively deciding to participate in that role play. Unfortunately if you don't like that, there are other games where player blockades can be enforced much more effectively. I'm not sure this point is relevant to the recent Lugh CG as I understood that it was based solely on combat bounties in the combat zone, but this could be relevant for other CG.

4. Other objections like "it takes me a long time to coordinate and form up my wing of players so I should be compensated for that" are, in my view, not really valid as an argument to give additional rewards.

In any case, I suspect that those who want to force a situation where CG are decided primarily by PVP type interaction are going to end up disappointed.

 

[Poplin]

I've spent 99.9% of my time in solo. But if things were changed to a case where open was separate, couldn't one merely quit and rejoin to get themselves in a new instance away from any blockade?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've spent 99.9% of my time in solo. But if things were changed to a case where open was separate, couldn't one merely quit and rejoin to get themselves in a new instance away from any blockade?

Quite possibly.

 

[Javert]

I've spent 99.9% of my time in solo. But if things were changed to a case where open was separate, couldn't one merely quit and rejoin to get themselves in a new instance away from any blockade?

You could keep logging out and in again and hope that eventually you would not be instanced with any of the blockaders, and/or you could run a lot of other downloads on your connection to try to force the instancing to put you alone. However if you have a good internet connection, no router issues, and you are not doing that, chances are that you would end up being instanced with at least some of them.

Anyway your point does raise an issue that's also been discussed on this thread, which is that if there was an inherent scoring advantage just from being in open mode, anybody with a dodgy internet connection, or who tweaks their router to interfere with the instancing code, would then be at an advantage. That's why if they did go down this route, it would probably have to be based on something that really shows you were with other players, like wing bonuses, or additional rewards for killing players versus NPC, for example, the later of which will cause a right old ruckus.

Who knows - maybe the person who won the race to Elite competition had rigged their router so they never saw any other player (I am not making an accusation here, just pointing out that your chance of seeing other players, and the number of them that you see, is dependent on your network setup).

 

[Kerrec Snowmane]

I've spent 99.9% of my time in solo. But if things were changed to a case where open was separate, couldn't one merely quit and rejoin to get themselves in a new instance away from any blockade?

.

Quite possibly.

.
Not necessarily. From my personal experience, when you are matched with certain players, you are matched because you "meet the criteria". I had a run in with the EIC in Liaedin before anyone heard of them. I was interdicted by a CMDR and managed to run. Next jump I went to another system, and another EIC CMDR was waiting and killed me. A couple days later, I was interdicted again by the same initial CMDR and killed.
.
When you are matched, it believe it is likely you will be matched repeatedly because you "meet the criteria". The only way to avoid this would be if the instances were so filled with players (which would defeat your argument), or I manipulated my internet connection so I no longer "meet the criteria" or if I switched to Solo.
.
So if you are matched once, likely you will be matched again and again.