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

[SteveLaw]

You don't think its unfair that someone can avoid all human interaction for as long as they please and than bring in all the stuff they have earned in Solo play into Open?

No of course it isn't unfair. It would be unfair if they weren't allowed to. As it is we are all allowed the same opportunities via mode swapping. Again this fear of Solo players bringing assets into Open but no acknowledgement of the ability to earn the same assets in Open systems where there are no other players. There is no difference.

I play Open because I believe human interaction is a very important part of the game. I feel like I have "cheatmode" on if I try and play Solo. All those people out their risking their ships and credits fighting targets in live CZ's and what, im supposed to just prance through Solo mode with not a worry in my head and than show back up on these forums and brag about how I am top 5% in the CG.

I play Open for the honor and I know many more who do the same. It is taking away from the enjoyment of other Hardcore Open Only players.

You are right, why don't I just play Solo?
Why doesn't everyone just play Solo?

I didn't ask why you don't play Solo, I asked why you play Open. My stance has always been that we continue to be allowed the choice for each player, each time they play.

For you, Open is more rewarding. For me, Solo is more rewarding. Neither of us choose our preferred mode because of the Credits we can or can't earn in our mode, we choose them for other reasons. You like the challenge of competing against other player and the bragging rights that brings with it. I like the isolation from other people because it allows me to recharge my energy after a day of interacting with people in the real world. Sometimes I like to Wing up with friends in our own Group.

Offering more monetary reward to either mode would not be likely to attract either of us to the other mode because that is not a factor of why we choose the mode we do.

The game wasent designed to be competitive and clearly it shows in these forums. But when you have things like Top % groups in CG's you better believe its going to turn into a virtual ing contest. People are competitive by nature. Everyone wants to be the top guy. Have the biggest and fastest ships. The most credits. Did you guys not see this kind of issue arising?

As has been said, not everyone. Doesn't interest me at all. I can't see me getting a ship bigger than my Asp any time in the foreseeable future. A Cobra, an Asp and a Vulture allow me to do all of the things I'm interested in doing at this point of my game. In fact they allow me to do all the things that the game allows me to do.

You talk about being the best, how is that measured in Elite? The only measures of progress that we have in the game - rank, ratings, credits - are more a factor of time invested than skill. So how would anyone know who the best is? How close are you to being the best in Elite? Serious question. When will someone know that they are the best in this game?

 

[Mercy Killing]

No of course it isn't unfair. It would be unfair if they weren't allowed to. As it is we are all allowed the same opportunities via mode swapping. Again this fear of Solo players bringing assets into Open but no acknowledgement of the ability to earn the same assets in Open systems where there are no other players. There is no difference.



I didn't ask why you don't play Solo, I asked why you play Open. My stance has always been that we continue to be allowed the choice for each player, each time they play.

For you, Open is more rewarding. For me, Solo is more rewarding. Neither of us choose our preferred mode because of the Credits we can or can't earn in our mode, we choose them for other reasons. You like the challenge of competing against other player and the bragging rights that brings with it. I like the isolation from other people because it allows me to recharge my energy after a day of interacting with people in the real world. Sometimes I like to Wing up with friends in our own Group.

Offering more monetary reward to either mode would not be likely to attract either of us to the other mode because that is not a factor of why we choose the mode we do.



As has been said, not everyone. Doesn't interest me at all. I can't see me getting a ship bigger than my Asp any time in the foreseeable future. A Cobra, an Asp and a Vulture allow me to do all of the things I'm interested in doing at this point of my game. In fact they allow me to do all the things that the game allows me to do.

You talk about being the best, how is that measured in Elite? The only measures of progress that we have in the game - rank, ratings, credits - are more a factor of time invested than skill. So how would anyone know who the best is? How close are you to being the best in Elite? Serious question. When will someone know that they are the best in this game?

You keep breaking my rep button.

 

[fademist]

You keep breaking my rep button.

he and jockey like to do that to our rep button

 

[SteveLaw]

How it is now, If you want to help contribute to a goal, you should play in solo(or maybe group, depending).

And yet, some players don't. Solo mode gives more reward than Open, right? That's your argument? Or at least it's easier/faster to get that reward. And yet many players still play Open. One mode already offers more reward per risk than another mode but people still play the other mode. What makes you think that offering more reward for Open would change anyone's choice?

Perhaps most players' mode choice isn't about the reward/risk at all. Perhaps some people play CGs in Solo/Group because they are bored with others stopping them playing the way that they want. What does it change if you offer more reward for activities in Open but then continue to stop other players from completing those activities? The only people who would benefit from higher rewards in Open are the people who already play Open. So you'd make changes in order to make no changes.

 

[Aimeryan]

You are only looking at it as one football game, it is the whole league, other games are being played at the same time and you can't be at all of them, many other divisions too all on the same Saturday at the same time, they still happen if you are there or in bed asleep.

I think Tennis would be a better description, at Wimbledon you have several courts and they play all at the same time, thousands of people there all enjoying the same sport in a different way, some watching one match some another, some eating strawberrys some eating a pie.

PVP was mentioned by DBOBE in the context of being rare & meaningful, and I would say it is far from that right now in some places, I don't think the crime update will do enough to make it happen, that said the game is far from finished and FD have not as far as I know retracted that statement. Now I could well be wrong and one but as they have also said they are making the game they want to play I guess we will have to wait and see on that part.

Ah, I see now where the misconception of my statement has been made, by many of the responders to the statement - this is likely my fault, though.

I look at Solo affecting Open in this regard like playing a football match but the other team is on a separate pitch - what is the point?

What I meant by this is that the other team is on a separate pitch playing against no one. So, the result of the game turns out something like 160-132, instead of 3-2, because there is no one to stop them getting goals, no one to contend the ball, etc. Yes, this is true for both sides and is thus balanced, but it wouldn't make for great entertainment. Basically, my point is that it is non-interactive competing; the competing basically becomes a measure of numbers and time, rather than interaction between players.

 

[SteveLaw]

Ah, I see now where the misconception of my statement has been made, by many of the responders to the statement - this is likely my fault, though.

I look at Solo affecting Open in this regard like playing a football match but the other team is on a separate pitch - what is the point?

What I meant by this is that the other team is on a separate pitch playing against no one. So, the result of the game turns out something like 160-132, instead of 3-2, because there is no one to stop them getting goals, no one to contend the ball, etc. Yes, this is true for both sides and is thus balanced, but it wouldn't make for great entertainment. Basically, my point is that it is non-interactive competing; the competing basically becomes a measure of numbers and time, rather than interaction between players.

The players that are on the same pitch are only playing against each other because that's what they asked to be able to do when they clicked on Open. The players not playing against anyone else are also doing that by their own choice because they clicked on Solo.

People playing in Solo do not stop other people playing and competing in Open with other players who also want to compete in Open. You are trying to compete with players who don't want to compete. You would not be competing with them, because they are not competing back.

You would be preventing them playing the game that they want. How is that fair? It might be entertaining for the players who want to compete but trust me it wouldn't be entertaining for the players who don't.

The only measurements of progress in Elite are in terms of numbers in time. Any other kind of competition is entirely in the players' heads. Do you keep track of all the players who you defeat and who defeat you? Because the game certainly doesn't.

 

[Aimeryan]

This was done for a lot of reasons but primary because FD didn't want any one play style to be able to dominate the game, including your play style.

You see FD see's all the modes to be valid play styles, even if you don't and there opinion counts more than any of ours.

First, please don't make personal assumptions on my nature.

As for the point in hand, 'because FD didn't want any one play style to be able to dominate the game', well that is exactly what has happened. This relates to my previous post about non-interactive competition; forcing Solo to affect Open forces non-interactive competition. Why?

Let me say, thank you all for the responses you have provided. I am now more aware of the fact that the game has been designed so that non-interaction competition is so strongly imbedded that it has to stay - from instancing in Open, to network configurations, to Solo affecting Open, etc. Thus, I wont argue for interactive competition any more. For the record, I like the game as it is; of course I would like to "improve" it from my viewpoint, but that doesn't seem to be shared.

Oh, last thing, I merely wanted to group players of a likemind and playstyle. My suggestion might of became for their to be two Open universes, one affected by Solo players and the other not - but there seems little point given the aforementioned way the game deals with interaction.

 

[SteveLaw]

Oh, last thing, I merely wanted to group players of a likemind and playstyle.

Isn't that precisely what Private Groups are for?

 

[Aimeryan]

The players that are on the same pitch are only playing against each other because that's what they asked to be able to do when they clicked on Open. The players not playing against anyone else are also doing that by their own choice because they clicked on Solo.

People playing in Solo do not stop other people playing and competing in Open with other players who also want to compete in Open. You are trying to compete with players who don't want to compete. You would not be competing with them, because they are not competing back.

You would be preventing them playing the game that they want. How is that fair? It might be entertaining for the players who want to compete but trust me it wouldn't be entertaining for the players who don't.

The only measurements of progress in Elite are in terms of numbers in time. Any other kind of competition is entirely in the players' heads. Do you keep track of all the players who you defeat and who defeat you? Because the game certainly doesn't.

But you are competing with them. Right now it is community goals - this is largely a non-interactive competition anyway (there is only one side you compete for and it just becomes a matters of numbers and time). Powerplay, at least from what I have read, seems to be a interactive competition (there are multiple sides struggling against each other directly). Either way, you are still competing against Solo players as an Open player in these sorts of things, except you can't do so interactively like you might have desired when you chose Open.

Isn't that precisely what Private Groups are for?

No, because they still play in the same universe as the others do and thus compete, as described above. As I said previously, I don't see much point in making a suggestion, due to aforementioned interaction issues amongst players even in Open. If I was to make one, though, simply have Solo/Private-group mode as one universe and Open mode as another. You can go between universes with your commander at will. That way, you have a universe for non-interactive competition, and a universe of interactive competition. Everyone wins.

 

[SteveLaw]

But you are competing with them. Right now it is community goals - this is largely a non-interactive competition anyway (there is only one side you compete for and it just becomes a matters of numbers and time).

Community Goals are designed as entirely non-interactive. No actions you take on another player has any direct effect on a CG. All you are doing is preventing some players from participating. Those that would rather participate than be stopped from doing so choose to switch mode.

Let's imagine two players taking part in a CG. Let's say it's a trade (or exploration) CG. Player A is bringing item X to station Y. Player B interdicts and kills them, or forces them to drop cargo. Neither player has made any contribution to the CG. Think about that.

Now, granted, a combat CG is less clear cut. If Player B kills Player A in a CZ or RES then Player B can still go on to collect bonds/bounties. However, the act of killing Player A adds nothing to the CG, all they've done is removed that player's chance of taking part. They have decided to remove content from their game. This is fine if Player A is someone who enjoys direct competition, but what about players who want to take part in the CG but don't want to fight other players for it?

Perhaps a player wants to take part in a CG simply for the basic participation bonus. They don't care what % rank they finish in, they just want to take part in the event that they saw in GalNet. Why should they be forced to be competitive? How do you know that every player in Group/Solo wants to be in the top 5? How do you know that every player in Open wants to be in the top 15%?

You want a competitive game but not everybody else does. Why do you propose that direct competition should trump all other choices?

 

[Aimeryan]

Community Goals are designed as entirely non-interactive. No actions you take on another player has any direct effect on a CG. All you are doing is preventing some players from participating. Those that would rather participate than be stopped from doing so choose to switch mode.

Let's imagine two players taking part in a CG. Let's say it's a trade (or exploration) CG. Player A is bringing item X to station Y. Player B interdicts them and kills them, or forces them to drop cargo. Neither player has made any contribution to the CG. Think about that.

Now, granted, a combat CG is less clear cut. If Player B kills Player A in a CZ or RES then Player B can still go on to collect bonds/bounties. However, the act of killing Player A adds nothing to the CG, all you've done is removed that player's chance of taking part. You have decided to remove content from their game. This is fine if Player A is someone who enjoys direct competition, but what about players who want to take part in the CG but don't want to fight other players for it?

Perhaps a player wants to take part in a CG simply for the basic participation bonus. They don't care what % rank they finish in, they just want to take part in the event that they saw in GalNet. Why should they be forced to be competitive? How do you know that every player in Group/Solo wants to be in the top 5? How do you know that every player in Open wants to be in the top 15%?

You want a competitive game but not everybody else does. Why do you propose that direct competition should trump all other choices?

I said all that before, in a few words: "this is largely a non-interactive competition". The interactive competition is the Powerplay stuff, which is coming into the game.

You seem to be confused between competing and being interactive (between players).

 

[SteveLaw]

If I was to make one, though, simply have Solo/Private-group mode as one universe and Open mode as another. You can go between universes with your commander at will. That way, you have a universe for non-interactive competition, and a universe of interactive competition. Everyone wins.

Who pays for the extra servers?

- - - Updated - - -

You seem to be confused between competing and being interactive.

And as I said, how do you know that everyone is taking part in a CG to be competitive? I also disagree that Power Play will be designed as interactive competition (nothing FD have done or said so far suggests that this is a direction they plan to go in, it's always about player choice of interaction and Power Play is for everyone) but we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Aimeryan]

And as I said, how do you know that everyone is taking part in a CG to be competitive?

By taking part in a CG you are competing against other players. You might not care, but you are doing so. That is the nature of a competition, which a CG is.

 

[SteveLaw]

By taking part in a CG you are competing against other players.

No you aren't. You don't have to get in a % rank to benefit from a CG. If I sign up and take 1 ton/bond/bounty/scan then I will get the participation bonus. How is that being competitive?

 

[Aimeryan]

No you aren't. You don't have to get in a % rank to benefit from a CG. If I sign up and take 1 ton/bond/bounty/scan then I will get the participation bonus. How is that being competitive?

It is being competitive, just not doing very well. Yes you get a reward regardless (the participation bonus), you even get one if you don't (if the CG is successful), but there is also the ranking bonus. You might not care about the ranking bonus, in which case you only did the CG in particular for the participation bonus, but you still competed. It wont matter of course, but you did.

Anyway, what was the point again?

 

[SteveLaw]

It is being competitive, just not doing very well. Yes you get a reward regardless (the participation bonus), you even get one if you don't (if the CG is successful), but there is also the ranking bonus. You might not care about the ranking bonus, in which case you only did the CG in particular for the participation bonus, but you still competed. It wont matter of course, but you did.

Here's another way of looking at a CG. If enough players don't take part and the tier isn't met then no-one gets a bonus. They are co-operative. You need more players to be participating. The more players you prevent from participating the greater the chance that no-one gets anything. It's a Community Goal. A goal for the whole community to work towards, together.

 

[Aimeryan]

Here's another way of looking at a CG. If enough players don't take part and the tier isn't met then no-one gets a bonus. They are co-operative. You need more players to be participating. The more players you prevent from participating the greater the chance that no-one gets anything. It's a Community Goal. A goal for the whole community to work towards, together.

With a competitive element. Being competitive doesn't mean hurting others, it merely means your performance is measured against others. You might not care, but it is. In CGs, this comes about as the ranking bonus. Competition is often used as an element to increase productivity.

 

[SteveLaw]

With a competitive element. Being competitive doesn't mean hurting others, it merely means your performance is measured against others. You might not care, but it is. In CGs, this comes about as the ranking bonus. Competition is often used as an element to increase productivity.

If I accept that (to move on) how does it matter which mode a player competes in? You said yourself that competing doesn't have to mean hurting others. So why does it matter if I'm competing on a different pitch to you? The long jump is competitive but the athletes aren't trying to stop each other's run up or blockading the pit.

 

[Aimeryan]

In community goals in doesn't which is why I classified it as non-interactive (between players). The issue will/may come about for Powerplay. I am fine to wait and see what happens at this point. It may be that Powerplay largely becomes uninteresting to me (and others of a like-mind) due to becoming just another numbers and time game. I'm not a grindy player at heart - I like interaction.

 

[SteveLaw]

In community goals in doesn't which is why I classified it as non-interactive (between players). The issue will/may come about for Powerplay. I am fine to wait and see what happens at this point. It may be that Powerplay largely becomes uninteresting to me (and others of a like-mind) due to becoming just another numbers and time game. I'm not a grindy player at heart - I like interaction.

Fair enough. Like I say I'd be surprised if Power Play followed that direction. If it does then it would become largely uninteresting to me and others of a like-mind. I'd rather wait and see the beta feedback or even the thing in action though first before calling for changes. Mind you, I wouldn't call for changes either way I'd just either play or not.

Perhaps, if nothing else, it will give us a signal as to FD's stance on this whole issue seeing as how they still aren't giving us direct feedback on it.