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

[Tuub t Tute]

Dunno if anyone has offered this before in 500+ pages. Maybe it is time to look down the other end of the telescope?

Imagine that the game design was: Solo is the expected or default way to play; Group was added so that co-operative play was possible. Open was a grudging afterthought because of the desire for pvpers to play the game their way. I know the immediate flaw is "what about the MMO tag?"

I'm not saying this is correct, more trying to reframe the argument in a way I haven't seen in my skim read of this behemoth.

 

[DarkWalker]

I disagree with your disagreement. I'm sure more people bought the game a fair and balanced game then switching modes.

Oh, I would so love if Frontier added a second, separate Open mode, one with an exclusive save and that prevented players from switching, while leaving the current one as it is. Then we would truly see how many players want a mode without mode switching; my guess is that this "Locked Open" mode would look almost as empty as Solo.

Regarding the XBox and PC trial, were PC players allowed to benefit from point and click mouse aiming? As we already have M/K, controller and sticks as control choices for the PC / Mac versions, I would expect that console players would be at no more of a disadvantage than players using controllers (they may need the chatpad though).

After a bit of googling, apparently the XBox One will recognise keyboards plugged in to it - so controller with conventional keyboard should be possible.

AFAIK, it was a RTS. Universe at War, developed by Petroglyph and published by Sega.

Which is even worse a game to try the PC versus Console angle than a FPS. Can you imagine playing a RTS with a controller?

Private Group = Country club. You can do whatever the hell you want in this mode too, but it's usually boring to everyone other than the participants.

Huh, what? Who else is in the group apart from the participants in the group?

Locked to open.

If I'm not mistaken, people that acquired a bounty by firing at, or killing, another player were supposed to be locked to open for a time, according to the DDR. And this is a design I fully support (well, as long as accidentally acquiring such a bounty can be avoided with a little care even when there's a player nearby trying to grief others by getting in their line of fire).

So the general consensus is its ok to be a punishment but not ok to be a balance. Seems a little hipocritical to me.

Player wants to engage in PvP, he should get the full consequences of that. Player chooses to not engage in PvP, he is not bound to the consequences of PvP. I don't see how this can be seen as hypocritical.

Also, for many players, being able to avoid PvP based on mood is more important than game balance. For people like me, compromising the balance merely results in a game that merely isn't as good, but compromising on the ability to avoid PvP makes the game unplayable.

I would expect that player blockades were not a primary design consideration for the game - otherwise we would probably have a different network model and would not have instances in multi-player modes. So, while being unable to prosecute a blockade may irk some players, it's a side-effect of the network model / instancing system (as well as the other two game modes) and therefore no reason, in my opinion, to segregate the game modes or remove the mode switching feature. Indeed, in DBOBE's Q&A at EGX 2014 he specifically mentions "don't go here or we'll kill you" in a way that would tend to suggest that he doesn't particularly care for the practice.

Besides, the very possibility of player blockades is a net (and huge) negative for quite a few players, myself included. I don't want other players to be able to negatively impact my gameplay experience — and, by promising not only a solo mode (with the further promise that switching would be freely done and unlimited), but also an offline mode (removed before launch, but still promised during much of the pre-order period), Frontier knowingly chose to attract players that think like me.

 

[fademist]

I don't think people have a problem with balance regarding weapon/ship/etc

let me remind you the cries of some pew pew ppl for the ship prices....and was the only ones that do that cause wanted free stuff ...didnt see any explorer or trader to say anything about their ships;p is strange right?;p

 

[Distance]

let me remind you the cries of some pew pew ppl for the ship prices....and was the only ones that do that cause wanted free stuff ...didnt see any explorer or trader to say anything about their ships;p is strange right?;p

That would have been a problem if they had kept the prices of those ships, remember it was beta and fd asked for feedback on it so they got feedback and made changes accordingly.

 

[Lestenio]

Like Ziggy, as far I'm personally concerned you can lock the modes. I have less and less inclination to play in Open the longer I spend on these forums, locking me to Solo/Group would make zero difference to my game.

I'm with you. I used to play open but drifted towards groups and then solo. I always assumed I'd go back to open when I was good and ready. But the more I read on the forums about people having the audacity to enjoy the game the way they please after spending £35 on it, the less I am inclined to hit anything other than solo.

 

[fademist]

That would have been a problem if they had kept the prices of those ships, remember it was beta and fd asked for feedback on it so they got feedback and made changes accordingly.

was beta when volture and fdl bringed to the game? ....

 

[Distance]

was beta when volture and fdl bringed to the game? ....

Yes there was a beta for 1.2 when the ships came in. Ships were like 200cr in the beta so you could test them.

 

[fademist]

Yes there was a beta for 1.2 when the ships came in. Ships were like 200cr in the beta so you could test them.

but im sure they didnt whine about the 200 cr ;p point is always will ppl whine/other opinion for everything ....

 

[Distance]

but im sure they didnt whine about the 200 cr ;p point is always will ppl whine/other opinion for everything ....

No they worked out the prices for the ships from the cost of the armor as the armor costs for most ships is linear. The vulture would have been 50 mil and fdl like 120mil (iirc) which would have made the vulture 70 mil kitted and not sure on the fdl. Players were looking for ships to fit the roles between Viper and Python and if they hadn't lowered the prices there wouldn't have had any middle ground.

 

[fademist]

No they worked out the prices for the ships from the cost of the armor as the armor costs for most ships is linear. The vulture would have been 50 mil and fdl like 120mil (iirc) which would have made the vulture 70 mil kitted and not sure on the fdl. Players were looking for ships to fit the roles between Viper and Python and if they hadn't lowered the prices there wouldn't have had any middle ground.

and from 50mil -120mil go to 5-56mil and in the same time the gap between the 1st explore ship and asp is the same and t7-t9 is the same ;p i dont go to multi cause the 1.3 new ships maybe fix that ;p

 

[Distance]

and from 50mil -120mil go to 5-56mil and in the same time the gap between the 1st explore ship and asp is the same and t7-t9 is the same ;p i dont go to multi cause the 1.3 new ships maybe fix that ;p

You're missing out on the outfitting costs. Right now it's balanced there is no merit to your argument as fd balanced it.

Exploration, hauler is 3 mil, Asp 56mil and conda up to 330 mil. With combat you had no middle ground, 3 mil viper to 230mil python.

 

[fademist]

You're missing out on the outfitting costs. Right now it's balanced there is no merit to your argument as fd balanced it.

Exploration, hauler is 3 mil, Asp 56mil and conda up to 330 mil. With combat you had no middle ground, 3 mil viper to 230mil python.

u forgot to put t7 costs and t9 outfit costs ;p us for combat didnt say was bad the lower but was too much ...another example of that is the cz with capital ships instead of change turret to not have automated targeting they nerf it to the ground
edit: forgot to mention that python is multi not combat;p

 

[Distance]

u forgot to put t7 costs and t9 outfit costs ;p us for combat didnt say was bad the lower but was too much ...another example of that is the cz with capital ships instead of change turret to not have automated targeting they nerf it to the ground
edit: forgot to mention that python is multi not combat;p

I've spent 400 hours trading, it has the only well balanced linear ship progression out of all the professions.

Python is multirole but great for combat, before fdl and vulture the only dedicated combat ships were the eagle and the viper . . .

 

[fademist]

I've spent 400 hours trading, it has the only well balanced linear ship progression out of all the professions.

Python is multirole but great for combat, before fdl and vulture the only dedicated combat ships were the eagle and the viper . . .

i never say that u dont have do.. many we managed to go to conda before volture-fdl and running cost lower was introduced to the game
we can agree that FD have done some mistakes just cause was unexperienced with the "mmo" thingy ;p
at some point we us players must stop whine for changes that would transfer the same problem to other areas ;D

 

[Ralph Vargr]

So the general consensus is its ok to be a punishment but not ok to be a balance. Seems a little hipocritical to me.

Hippo's are a quite critical threat. They kill more people than alligators and crocodiles.

 

[SCADVID]

Like Ziggy, as far I'm personally concerned you can lock the modes. I have less and less inclination to play in Open the longer I spend on these forums, locking me to Solo/Group would make zero difference to my game.

Likewise.

The more I read this forum the more I regret even buying the game. You'd think that a kickstarter game would be more diplomatic, but this makes Elitist Jerks running a game look tame. At least they don't go around trying to impersonate devs and moderators (that's entitlement gone wild). -_-

 

[Dave1235]

If what "was forced on killers and pirates"?

Locked to open.

Lets look from a slightly different angle, I am not sure if it was stated locked into open but I will take that as read for now.

Forced on killers (not proper pirates, that try not to kill), any system has to ensure that an accidental kill now and again can be redeemed reasonably quickly, 10 kills a day, not so much!.

In solo you can't PK, so that's void.

In Mobius (or any other pve) you PK someone you are booted, no way FD will overturn the group leaders decision, and the pve players wont want to fight the player by definition.

That leaves ...... Open, which imho says, if you PK in open then stay there and face the consequences, you want to PK then take your turn being the target for BH, not get locked into open, just pay the price where you do the crime, I think that's fair.

 

[Dave1235]

What's the difference? If, instead of dropping to Solo, I started to play at a strange time when next to no-one else was playing, what is the actual practical difference?

Or even be on a different continent to them, where even in open you would never, ever, ever meet then due to matchmaking.

The busier the place, the more instances = less change of blocking.

 

[Dave1235]

Like Ziggy, as far I'm personally concerned you can lock the modes. I have less and less inclination to play in Open the longer I spend on these forums, locking me to Solo/Group would make zero difference to my game.

I'm with you. I used to play open but drifted towards groups and then solo. I always assumed I'd go back to open when I was good and ready. But the more I read on the forums about people having the audacity to enjoy the game the way they please after spending £35 on it, the less I am inclined to hit anything other than solo.

I joined in PB1, almost a year ago and played in open until mid gamma, I have never been ganked / pk'd etc.

The forums are what helped me decide to take a break from open, I have a feeling that break is going to be longer than I initially expected.

 

[W0OCQCK]

I joined in PB1, almost a year ago and played in open until mid gamma, I have never been ganked / pk'd etc.

The forums are what helped me decide to take a break from open, I have a feeling that break is going to be longer than I initially expected.

Yea, me too. I'm not going to go to "PVP Open" no matter what. Just not my cup of tea. Been enjoying my play in, "Mobius" too much to ever change, at least until, "PVE Open" is a reality. I just would never enjoy the ganking style of PVP there.

There are people that will stop at nothing to destroy our options in this game. No matter how eloquently they may appear or post, there underlying purpose is to force every player into an open arena, (just like EVE). The people like this will never come to grips with allowing players to tune them out. Its really unfair in there eyes. They will never quit beating this dead horse in hopes of finding that golden spear. The golden spear that will force FD to make just one choice, open for everybody. To them FD is simply confused, and miss guided, and not completely aware of how things just have to be. How dare them violate the EvE code.

It is my belief that nothing, Blockades, Community Goals, or the such will ever be more important to FD, then everyone being able to play their way, and enjoy themselves. You probably just need to accept this. I personally think it would be better for everyone.

This game has a wonderful design, and I really appreciate how it's laid out, I think a lot of people do. I really do thoroughly enjoy myself playing it. If Eve have had a PVE server I would still be playing it!

Elite is never gonna be perfect, you ever played a game that was, (except for EvE of course)? Elite's not perfect, but its ,"REALLY COOL". So my suggestion to everyone is this. Go out and play your game, focus on your game, focus on your fun. I'm not part of it.

SO if you don't like it, how did that EvE Exec, (the total moron IMO) coin that phrase. The people that don't like our game,(meaning EvE) and chose not to play it may be a good way to loose business, or something like that.

Play the game or don't, I'm seriously sorry if you can't find something you like here.