Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

[Gunshow]

Just to throw my 2 cents into the ring on this debate, I’m sure it has been phrased in either the same/similar way from someone else, probably even on this thread, but I’ll try my best.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with Solo/group modes existing, whether it be for players that simply do not want to see or interact with other human players either permanently or just at the time. From what I’ve seen there are a multitude of reason why players would want to do this ranging from simply not wanting to risk involuntary PvP due to skill/health issues or simply those wanting to maximise their earnings.

My problem starts when people (IMHO) abuse the current modes system by switching to solo, maxxing their profits with no risk, then coming back to Open bearing all the rewards, meanwhile Open players have had to fight through blockades, pirates and wings to get to the same point.

At the risk of being shot down, I am likening this behaviour to another (albeit unrelated) game, in DayZ there was (and likely still is) a “server hopping” issue wherein players would join an empty server, get to an area in-land which contains the best loot (usually high spec military weapons & armour) which in normal servers are high PvP areas, gather everything to fully kit themselves out and then re-join a populated server with the loot to use against others. Granted in EDs case the “loot” would be Credits, but I would say the behaviour and steps are the same:

- Join a server with severely reduced risk (Solo)
- Gather usually highly contested supplies (High traffic CG zones)
- Return to populated server with the rewards against players who are still fighting to get them (Re-joining Open with additional Credits)

The simple way I think this should be resolved is to continue allowing Solo play or those who want to use it (again, I’ve absolutely no problem with Solo) but having a separate CMDR in Solo to the CMDR used in Open. In theory this allows players to play on their own when they want to, but stops the switching which puts Open players at a disadvantage

 

[SteveLaw]

Just to throw my 2 cents into the ring on this debate, I’m sure it has been phrased in either the same/similar way from someone else, probably even on this thread, but I’ll try my best.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with Solo/group modes existing, whether it be for players that simply do not want to see or interact with other human players either permanently or just at the time. From what I’ve seen there are a multitude of reason why players would want to do this ranging from simply not wanting to risk involuntary PvP due to skill/health issues or simply those wanting to maximise their earnings.

My problem starts when people (IMHO) abuse the current modes system by switching to solo, maxxing their profits with no risk, then coming back to Open bearing all the rewards, meanwhile Open players have had to fight through blockades, pirates and wings to get to the same point.

At the risk of being shot down, I am likening this behaviour to another (albeit unrelated) game, in DayZ there was (and likely still is) a “server hopping” issue wherein players would join an empty server, get to an area in-land which contains the best loot (usually high spec military weapons & armour) which in normal servers are high PvP areas, gather everything to fully kit themselves out and then re-join a populated server with the loot to use against others. Granted in EDs case the “loot” would be Credits, but I would say the behaviour and steps are the same:

- Join a server with severely reduced risk (Solo)
- Gather usually highly contested supplies (High traffic CG zones)
- Return to populated server with the rewards against players who are still fighting to get them (Re-joining Open with additional Credits)

The simple way I think this should be resolved is to continue allowing Solo play or those who want to use it (again, I’ve absolutely no problem with Solo) but having a separate CMDR in Solo to the CMDR used in Open. In theory this allows players to play on their own when they want to, but stops the switching which puts Open players at a disadvantage

What about the players who have been playing longer? They have more credits and they may well have earned them all in Open. Or the player who doesn't have a job vs the player with a job and a family. Or to put in another way, in ED, how do you know where a player earned their credits? How can you tell? How does the source of the credit change their position? What difference does it make?

What about the player who earned all their credits in Open but in a system with no other players?

 

[Arioch]

The simple way I think this should be resolved is to continue allowing Solo play or those who want to use it (again, I’ve absolutely no problem with Solo) but having a separate CMDR in Solo to the CMDR used in Open. In theory this allows players to play on their own when they want to, but stops the switching which puts Open players at a disadvantage

You forgot about Group (as many before you have done).

 

[Ralph Vargr]

And now, I have a fresh, new episode of Game of Thrones to watch. All bow before Lord Tyrion!

All bow before Henry VIII, or have thy head smitten from thy body, if the date does not look like the Match.com photo...

A *lot* of princesses switched to Solo Mode during that epoch. Anne Of Cleves wisely dropped out of Open Play into a Solo Group, after her PvP experience.

 

[SteveLaw]

All bow before Henry VIII, or have thy head smitten from thy body, if the date does not look like the Match.com photo...

A *lot* of princesses switched to Solo Mode during that epoch. Anne Of Cleves wisely dropped out of Open Play into a Solo Group, after her PvP experience.

And look at the mess we ended up with when Henry wanted more rewards for playing Open...

 

[FuzzySpider]

The simple way I think this should be resolved is to continue allowing Solo play or those who want to use it (again, I’ve absolutely no problem with Solo) but having a separate CMDR in Solo to the CMDR used in Open. In theory this allows players to play on their own when they want to, but stops the switching which puts Open players at a disadvantage

Given that, in theory, we don't want players at a disadvantage should Open play also be subject to a matchmaking system, which puts only like-for-like ships in certain instances?

If a person has played Solo, and grinded his way to a Type-9 Lakon, and decides to try Open he could well run into a fully A-specced Vulture. Who has the disadvantage in that case, and shouldn't we seek to eliminate that too? If you're going for logical consistency you have to.

 

[Gunshow]

You forgot about Group (as many before you have done).

In the context of my post, Group would use the same CMDR as is used on Solo as it makes no impact if they're playing with friends in a wing or with dedicated PvE players.

What about the players who have been playing longer? They have more credits and they may well have earned them all in Open. Or the player who doesn't have a job vs the player with a job and a family. Or to put in another way, in ED, how do you know where a player earned their credits? How can you tell? How does the source of the credit change their position? What difference does it make?

What about the player who earned all their credits in Open but in a system with no other players?

A player in a low population system is not what we're talking about here though. They're still in Open in this hypothetical, therefore still open to same threats other players are, and the earning available purely in one quiet system is still lower than what could potentially be earned by joining CG's with no risk.

To clarify, my issue is not credit disparity, because at the end of the day, whether they have more time to play or not, they've still earned their money. I myself have a full time job and don't have much time to put in.
To raise the issue of not knowing how they've earned their money seems mute however, in the same sense that someone who makes money IRL through unscrupulous means has less rights to have the money than someone who earned it through hard work.

 

[SteveLaw]

A player in a low population system is not what we're talking about here though. They're still in Open in this hypothetical, therefore still open to same threats other players are, and the earning available purely in one quiet system is still lower than what could potentially be earned by joining CG's with no risk..

The threats to a player A in an empty system in Open are exactly the same as to a player B in Solo. They are entirely different to an Open player C in Lave or Eravate.

A=B but you claim A=C. It's not logical.

Switching modes is not unscrupulous, it's a core design of the game you paid for. A more accurate analogy is the high risk investment banker complaining that the plumber is making more money and then spending that money in his golf club. It's snobbery.

 

[Zplintz]

How do you differentiate between those two? And what's the difference between the one above who runs off to Solo and the one who logs off and goes to bed?

The difference is that a player chooses to murder in open. Once you xgoose to do that you should stay in open.

If someone logs off they are not playing (no matter what mode they play in).. That is completely unrelated to solo/grouo/open play. When they log off they would come back into open (if they are wanted for murdering a player).

You want to swap between solo and open then avoid murdering another player. ie You shouldn't be able to murder another player and then hide in solo.

This was part of the original ks and also in DDF. Not sure why it wasn't implimented as it makes perfect sense. Perhaps the engine cannot yet distinguish what a player is wanted for (only that they have a wanted status) and/or if for murder, between players and npc?

 

[SteveLaw]

The difference is that a player chooses to murder in open. Once you xgoose to do that you should stay in open.

If someone logs off they are not playing (no matter what mide they play in). When they log off they would come back into open (if they are wanted for murdering a player).

You want to swap between solo and open then avoid murdering another player. ie You shouldn't be able to murder another player and then hide in solo.

This was part of the original ks and also in DDF. Not sure why it wasn't implimented as it makes perfect sense. Perhaps the engine cannot yet distinguish what a player is wanted for (only that they have a wanted status) and/or if for murder, between players and npc?

Fair enough. I didn't really follow your point there before. This is okay in theory but how long must they be locked to Open after murdering someone?

 

[Asp Explorer]

The difference is that a player chooses to murder in open. Once you xgoose to do that you should stay in open.

If someone logs off they are not playing (no matter what mide they play in). When they log off they would come back into open (if they are wanted for murdering a player).

You want to swap between solo and open then avoid murdering another player. ie You shouldn't be able to murder another player and then hide in solo.

This was part of the original ks and also in DDF. Not sure why it wasn't implimented as it makes perfect sense. Perhaps the engine cannot yet distinguish what a player is wanted for (only that they have a wanted status) and/or if for murder, between players and npc?

It's a nice idea, but the problem with that is it's a simple double-NAT to remove all other players, and live out your imposed Open-ban (for lack of a better word) in solo mode.

 

[Jaeger]

I agree with the first and last. Player interaction is the reward for playing in open - it's by choice that each player makes, individually.

This is key. The game must provide compelling PvP content conducive to people wanting to play in open. Combining modes or penalizing one mode over another is not the solution. The game has to make open play something people want to do, not are forced into.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Fair enough. I didn't really follow your point there before. This is okay in theory but how long must they be locked to Open after murdering someone?

The current system is a little flawed as it works on real time rather than gameplay time. If someone gets a bounty in Open they should stay in Open until the bounty is dealt with, one way or another. I'd suggest that bounties be given for a multiple of hours (let's say 24 hours for murder). The individual who picked up that bounty should have to play in Open for 24 hours. Not consecutively obviously, but with a timer that tick tick ticks as he plays and stops when he logs off.

Bounties picked up in Solo wouldn't cause an Open lock, but would count down with the same system - gametime not realtime.

This is key. The game must provide compelling PvP content conducive to people wanting to play in open. Combining modes or penalizing one mode over another is not the solution. The game has to make open play something people want to do, not are forced into.

The game can't make people want to play Open, only other players can do that. And thus far I think they're doing a poor job. I started out playing Open all the time but I got fed up of pointless interdictions and attacks for the sake of Pew Pew Pew PvP combat when I was trying to roleplay as Mr Handsome Space Captain.

 

[Arioch]

To clarify, my issue is not credit disparity, because at the end of the day, whether they have more time to play or not, they've still earned their money. I myself have a full time job and don't have much time to put in.

My problem starts when people (IMHO) abuse the current modes system by switching to solo, maxxing their profits with no risk, then coming back to Open bearing all the rewards, meanwhile Open players have had to fight through blockades, pirates and wings to get to the same point.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any clarification. Are you arguing that people who've played in Solo/Group haven't 'earned' their stuff in the correct way?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any clarification. Are you arguing that people who've played in Solo/Group haven't 'earned' their stuff in the correct way?

Indeed they are. It's all part of the metagame Solo mode is to be presented as a now-banned word, only Open is the true path, and all other playstyles are to be derided and deemed inferior, so that they get what they want.

 

[DarkWalker]

I am not going to presume to answer for Fire...but my opinion on the last set of statements is that we purchased a half finished game. Things are going to change. There might be more broken 'promises' as time, and the game, moves on. It has happened on major parts of the game, and could happen again as the game evolves.

Change? Sure, it's possible. And Frontier has promised a series of expansions, so some kind of change is coming.

Renege on promises that, for many people, were exceedingly important in their decision to even purchase the game in the first place? Well, I guess it's possible if Frontier wants to destroy their credibility as a publisher. I mean, why should I ever purchase a game from a dev that openly removes bullet-point features due to them conflicting with some mysterious "vision" of how game should be played?

Try this:

Open 2 PC's count as 5 NPC's. The reward would still be for two kills, but the contribution to the overall goal would be 5 NPC's rather than 2.

If there is a discrepancy in the number of NPC's that Open can kill due to PC intervention, then a debuff can occur in Private mode..

You kill 50 NPC's in Private you get rewarded for all of them, your contribution to the goal is 45.

In either case, everyone is still paid for their proper number of kills, but the inequalities toward contribution to tiers is overcome.

Actually, no. Because the PC intervention means those doing the intervention contributed to their own goal by hindering the opposition, even though the game doesn't track this kind of indirect contribution.

It's like in team sports. The goalkeeper might not score points, but he is exceedingly important to the team.

You might say that the solo mode negates the validity of playing defense, but as long as both sides have players that stay in open, playing defense in open is still valid, and indirectly contributes to the goal by denying the opposition. And if the whole opposition drops to solo then the defenders will be playing without player intervention too, again evening things.

What might be a good idea is to try and track (and reward) such indirect contributions.

Ok...let's look at two player groups from the game.

Emperor's Grace and EIC.

Neither are in direct opposition, nor are they having any strife between them. This is an example! <come on internet work with me here!>

What they are is two large groups that have worked the BGS for months.

EG has expanded into a number of systems. EIC, creates 2 groups of 10 people, and has them start to mess with EG's systems in Private mode. Currently, they could, in concert start flipping stations and systems. Depending on the current queues in these systems, they could remove CG from these systems in a week to 2 weeks. Worse, they could just work a bunch of missions and queue up a bunch of unnecessary states to stop EG for months in all their systems. This is what I am talking about.

You are correct, it doesn't matter what happens within the systems if people keep to themselves...however, if the BGS doesn't drastically change, the above will happen to someone at sometime....and the receiving player group will not know who did it...or worse just write it off to the buggy BGS and struggle on.

You are aware that there's a matchmaking system that takes into account things like mutual latency and physical distance, right? A similar effect will already happen whether solo is available or not. Besides, any group with enough coordination to have external resources (like group-wide third party voice comms) and be able to coordinate its members would have the technical and organizational means to spread among its members easy ways to mess with the firewall settings, nullifying any attempt to nerf the influence of solo. And yeah, it can reasonably happen, the same way many raiding groups in WoW have mandatory voice chat servers and required addons that the player must use before joining.

The game, with its architecture, wasn't made to foster EVE-style organized large group conflict, and I don't think it's possible to "fix" it without a complete change in how servers work. "Fix" intentionally between quotation marks, because for many of us that is not an issue, but a highly desirable feature; not allowing organized groups to ruin the game for individual players by controlling specific systems and dictating what happens there is, for many of us, among ED's strongest points.

---

I'd be happy for Open to have a 30% bonus on everything and a 50% discount on ships if they gave me my own isolated universe.

If I had my own, personal, isolated universe, running on my own machine, bonuses and penalties to such a mode would be meaningless; I would mod the heck out of the game.

I mean, I was looking at one of the games I heavily tweak (all the tunings available as well documented XML tend to have that effect on me), and counted over two hundred individual tweaks I've made. As long as the game allows it, I tend to have as much fun modding it as playing it. Heck, scrap it; in some game I have more fun modding them than playing them. It's a large part of why I wanted an offline mode. And why I'm strangely tempted by the idea of a shadow ban; if, by being prevented from ever again meeting other players or influencing the galaxy, I could gain the right to mod and cheat in the game as I see fit, I believe the end result would be far more enjoyable for me. Being sincere, the devs here aren't quite in tune with what makes games enjoyable for me.

This is key. The game must provide compelling PvP content conducive to people wanting to play in open. Combining modes or penalizing one mode over another is not the solution. The game has to make open play something people want to do, not are forced into.

Just be aware that PvP, by its very nature — and specially if the PvP is of the non-consensual variety, like that in open — will never appease a part of the player base. There are many players that simply don't want to be involved with such PvP.

It's why I believe an open PvE mode would be a good idea, drawing together the players that want social interaction but won't accept the PvP that comes attached to that in ED (well, apart from groups like Mobius at least), but that discussion is for another thread.

 

[OldSalt]

This is key. The game must provide compelling PvP content conducive to people wanting to play in open. Combining modes or penalizing one mode over another is not the solution. The game has to make open play something people want to do, not are forced into.

This hits it on the head for me. Open should be made into a mode the majority of players want to play in, not forcing it, not separating anything. Make open better, don't try and make any other mode worse.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This hits it on the head for me. Open should be made into a mode the majority of players want to play in, not forcing it, not separating anything. Make open better, don't try and make any other mode worse.

.... and by making player interaction in Open better, by definition, Private Group play will be similarly enhanced.

 

[Zplintz]

Fair enough. I didn't really follow your point there before. This is okay in theory but how long must they be locked to Open after murdering someone?

Good question - perhaps until the Wanted/Bounty flags are removed as part of Open play (ie not allowing bounty or wanted flag received from attacking a Player in Open to be removed in Solo)?

It's a nice idea, but the problem with that is it's a simple double-NAT to remove all other players, and live out your imposed Open-ban (for lack of a better word) in solo mode.

That would be cheating and to some extent a different issue. If however the authentication/instancing server could detect that you are not allowing other players through your firewall then you would effectively be in Solo and the same rule as above could apply.


Don't get me wrong though, I am not saying implementation would be straight forward (it's easy to make rules on paper, not necessarily so easy to apply them in practice), I just think overall, Player killers (and perhaps any of us who break the in-game laws) get off a little too lightly. The changes in 1.3 may deal with some of that but I have never been comfortable that I could effectively spend an evening picking off easy targets (whether at random or targeting an individual or group) and then just hide away in Solo until I (for example) had traveled far enough away from the crime scene for it to not be a problem or even while I paid off my fines and bounties).

Apart from maybe applying a cool down timer for switching between open and solo/private groups, I have never thought people should be forced into open for normal play or CGs except where it involved PvP.

 

[W0OCQCK]

Good question - perhaps until the Wanted/Bounty flags are removed as part of Open play (ie not allowing bounty or wanted flag received from attacking a Player in Open to be removed in Solo)?



That would be cheating and to some extent a different issue. If however the authentication/instancing server could detect that you are not allowing other players through your firewall then you would effectively be in Solo and the same rule as above could apply.


Don't get me wrong though, I am not saying implementation would be straight forward (it's easy to make rules on paper, not necessarily so easy to apply them in practice), I just think overall Player killers (and perhaps any of us who break the in-game laws) get off a little too lightly. The changes in 1.3 may deal with some of that but I have never been comfortable that I could effectively spend an evening picking off easy targets (whether at random or targeting an individual or group) and then just hide away in Solo until I (for example) had traveled far enough away from the crime scene for it to not be a problem or even while I paid off my fines and bounties).

Apart from maybe applying a cool down timer for switching between open and solo/private groups, I have never thought people should be forced into open for normal play or CGs except where it involved PvP.

The implementation needs to be straight forward! IE a boost to CG's in open, and maybe a little increased earning potential, that's it! So I'm giving an inch or two here, now everyone it trying to complicate things asking for miles and miles. The changes your suggesting could be done at a later date. Maybe after atmospheric landings eh. We need to keep it simple, and let the devs stay on course. The games not perfect! It will never be perfect just for you 100%. Please try and get use to the idea.

I have no idea what would be involved in locking a player down to open if they commit a crime. But it sounds like a fair amount of coding, debugging, etc..