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

[Robert Maynard]

Is it? On what data do you make this assertion?
IIRC an average is a calculated value using 1 set of data from which are derived 2 values that are used to compute a value that is termed 'average'.
Your statement is a platitude.
It's like saying it is reasonable to expect that the efforts of a group of students will average out in an exam in one subject and across subjects. Errant nonsense.
[]
It's OK, I subject user requirements to the same kind of review; I'm a software engineer. It's part of the job.

If the single players are uncoordinated, why is it not reasonable to expect random affiliation / contribution in any of the modes? On what basis do you expect a different outcome?

 

[Jockey79]

The choice isnt odd, that you highlighted it, is.

I highlighted all the parts that show the game was built and designed around the premise of player choices.
Who to play with, where to play and what to play as - it is all down to the individual.

It was done back when people were still arguing over the game being broken and saying modes had to be removed or locked.
As some folks still say daft things like that, I see no reason to remove the highlights.

 

[SteveLaw]

Is it? On what data do you make this assertion?
IIRC an average is a calculated value using 1 set of data from which are derived 2 values that are used to compute a value that is termed 'average'.
Your statement is a platitude.
It's like saying it is reasonable to expect that the efforts of a group of students will average out in an exam in one subject and across subjects. Errant nonsense.
[]
It's OK, I subject user requirements to the same kind of review; I'm a software engineer. It's part of the job.

Number of Solo players participating in PP / Number of Powers.

 

[Aimeryan]

FD don't have compensate for you choosing a profession that is no longer satisfying to you because you have no more players left to attack.

Back for a mo, so probably wont respond again for a while. Just wanted to highlight this.

If FD wants that to be a relevant option, then they sort of do. If FD doesn't care about that feature, then they needn't do anything. FD's intentions here are key.

 

[Jockey79]

Back for a mo, so probably wont respond again for a while. Just wanted to highlight this.

If FD wants that to be a relevant option, then they sort of do. If FD doesn't care about that feature, then they needn't do anything. FD's intentions here are key.

FDs intentions have been made quite clear.
Right from the start they said they are making ED for themselves, that is why they went with Kickstarter and put up the game they want to make - their intentions.

It was all discussed in the DDA as well.

Links are in my wall of text, page 1, post 3.

If they change their stance, or decided to go another direction - if people link me the new information I can update my wall. But as it stands, my wall is the most up to date information (to the best of my knowledge).

 

[atak2]

Easy Tiger!, Fire70 and I have a little bit of banter going on here that you might have missed, did you see what I was replying to? "You actually play?? I thought you spent all you time in this thread....", I read that with a smile, I was not offended, I am pretty sure he will understand where I am coming from as my words mostly relate back to previous conversations (trying to paraphrase him as best I can), and I am pretty sure he will take it as it was meant, although reading it again a smiley or two wouldn't have hurt.

I like the guy, he is certainly tenacious, obviously enjoys the same game we all do, but we disagree on one part of it, that does not exclude me from liking him, I also agree with people I argue with on other points, and support & +1 rep them where we agree. Fire70 asked me to block him early on in this thread and I said I no (he had done nothing I found offensive and was free to block me if he wanted to, as he still is) I said I would prefer to continue the conversation, I am glad I did, or I would just remember him as someone I used to disagree with.

I will leave the "What a fantastic human being" part alone if you don't mind.

<Snipped too for same reason> "example of a Solo/Group advocate behaviour.", I am not adverse to open, I used it pretty much exclusively from PB to mid Gamma , I have never said I will not play open ever again (apart from in reply to people telling me I need to start a new CMDR from scratch to do it, etc). There are people here I would go into open to meet in a heartbeat, Jorlin being one of them, I tried to meet him in Beta but I was always online too late, one day maybe I hope .... Vipers at dawn Mr Rabbit .

I am not going to link every post so far and explain it, but I will explain the first one I can think of as an example. Fire70 said "don't worry Dave I will add you as a friend, you will never be lonely again", I replied "Not sure if that's a threat or a positive lol, I will give you the benefit of doubt though". I mentioned if he did add me I would PM him and ask for the lottery numbers (my CMDR name is not forum name ) etc, a bit of banter.

Fire70 is one of maybe a dozen or so people I would actually come into open to meet, anyway it's all a mute point, If Fire70 took offence he is welcome to PM me and we can discuss it, if I believe he was genuinely offended by my post I will be happy to offer an open apology, and mean every single word of it, I don't come here to offend people, I come here to discuss the a game I enjoy playing.

That's good.

I apologise for any offensive comments I made to you and anyone else too.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

FDs intentions have been made quite clear.
Right from the start they said they are making ED for themselves, that is why they went with Kickstarter and put up the game they want to make - their intentions.

It was all discussed in the DDA as well.

Links are in my wall of text, page 1, post 3.

If they change their stance, or decided to go another direction - if people link me the new information I can update my wall. But as it stands, my wall is the most up to date information (to the best of my knowledge).

It's their game but they need players as much as we need them. To stick with a vision of something, while it sinks around you, like a cpt going down with his ship, is stupid. FD won't let open become a desolate wasteland. If it does, they'll change something to revitalize it. Whatever that is is up to them, but something will change.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean 'it sinks around them'.

You may not have noticed, but there are people who are happy with the vision.

I didn't imply it was.

 

[Aimeryan]

FDs intentions have been made quite clear.
Right from the start they said they are making ED for themselves, that is why they went with Kickstarter and put up the game they want to make - their intentions.

It was all discussed in the DDA as well.

Links are in my wall of text, page 1, post 3.

If they change their stance, or decided to go another direction - if people link me the new information I can update my wall. But as it stands, my wall is the most up to date information (to the best of my knowledge).

I am sorry, but I disagree. I have not seen anywhere that FD have said that they do not care about supporting meaningful player-to-player interaction in the upcoming Powerplay events. They may well have done, but I haven't seen it.

I'll be totally fair here and say that I haven't seen them say that they would do so, either. The result of either would likely turn this debate on its head, since currently the likelihood is that the current system exactly as it is will not support it (so, either there will have to be change if FD says they will support it, or everyone that wants it will have to accept that they wont get it, outside of ad hoc community events, if FD says it will not support it).

 

[Jockey79]

It's their game but they need players as much as we need them. To stick with a vision of something, while it sinks around you, like a cpt going down with his ship, is stupid. FD won't let open become a desolate wasteland. If it does, they'll change something to revitalize it. Whatever that is is up to them, but something will change.

Who said it is sinking?
All you do is project doom and gloom without any actual proof that it is happening.

People may have moved away from the starting areas and spread out more, thus making it harder to find anyone.
Remember, space is a big place. And players seeing players is supposed to be "rare and meaningful".

Unless FD actual publish some numbers, no one knows how well or badly they are doing.

 

[Jockey79]

I am sorry, but I disagree. I have not seen anywhere that FD have said that they do not care about supporting meaningful player-to-player interaction in the upcoming Powerplay events. They may well have done, but I haven't seen it.

I'll be totally fair here and say that I haven't seen them say that they would do so, either. The result of either would likely turn this debate on its head, since currently the likelihood is that the current system exactly as it is will not support it (so, either there will have to be change if FD says they will support it, or everyone that wants it will have to accept that they wont get it, outside of ad hoc community events, if FD says it will not support it).

Well, as you've not followed a single link in my wall of text, or done any research yourself so it seems - you will not have seen DB talking about what ED is and the direction it is going and how player interaction is going to be "rare and meaningful"

I suggest you follow the Twitch link for DB talking last September.
Down to you if you actually want to know.

 

[SteveLaw]

I am sorry, but I disagree. I have not seen anywhere that FD have said that they do not care about supporting meaningful player-to-player interaction in the upcoming Powerplay events. They may well have done, but I haven't seen it.

I'll be totally fair here and say that I haven't seen them say that they would do so, either. The result of either would likely turn this debate on its head, since currently the likelihood is that the current system exactly as it is will not support it (so, either there will have to be change if FD says they will support it, or everyone that wants it will have to accept that they wont get it, outside of ad hoc community events, if FD says it will not support it).

They do support meaningful PvP. David Braben used pretty much those exact words in one of his presentations. His vision of the game is that PvP would be rare but when it occurs it would be meaningful. He wanted the vast majority of player interactions to be cooperative. You might argue that he was being naive but you can't argue that it wasn't his intent. I don't have the link on hand, I'm supposed to be sorting my kitchen cupboards *whistles casually* but Jockey probably knows the one I mean. (Haha, there you go. )

One of the problems we have, that leaks into this debate, is that many players do not find a lot of the PvP meaningful. They see it as mindless "pew pew" at best, "griefing" at worst. How do FD encourage meaningful PvP without encourging PvP (because it should be rare) and without being seen to be discouraging PvE? That's the crux of the debate. None of us are against finding a solution but we haven't yet found one that works all round and is fair to all. While I share the disappointment that FD have not fed back on this I can totally understand why they haven't. It's one of the hottest potatoes in gaming.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

To be clear (I can't stress this enough), my desire is not to stop Solo players being included in the power event. I merely want to ensure that there will be significant PvP in the event if the Devs intend that to be the case.

I see the disconnect. The problem with the above is that the devs cannot provide you or anyone else with PVP. Only the players can. I don't know if Bigcheese is still around, but I give him credit for figuring it out. He always seemed fairly bitter that the playerbase was in his words "risk adverse", but to his credit he realized that it was the playerbase, and not the devs who were responsible.

I don't know what the pve/pvp breakdown is, but it is obviously enough to frustrate those who are yearning for pvp which is why we have this thread. That's not something the devs can change. Maybe it's the demographics, maybe it is because it's a space sim, but for whatever reason, a significant number of players have said, "no thank you" to pvp.

 

[Aimeryan]

I see the disconnect. The problem with the above is that the devs cannot provide you or anyone else with PVP. Only the players can. I don't know if Bigcheese is still around, but I give him credit for figuring it out. He always seemed fairly bitter that the playerbase was in his words "risk adverse", but to his credit he realized that it was the playerbase, and not the devs who were responsible.

I don't know what the pve/pvp breakdown is, but it is obviously enough to frustrate those who are yearning for pvp which is why we have this thread. That's not something the devs can change. Maybe it's the demographics, maybe it is because it's a space sim, but for whatever reason, a significant number of players have said, "no thank you" to pvp.

This depends on whether there are players that would play in Open, but find it more efficient to play in Solo. If this is the case, then FD can make changes to make it so that playing in Open is not penalising. Or they could for example have a few systems (out of the 400 billion systems I think it is?) that the Powerplay involved there can only be affected by Open. Or some far more clever solution than I can currently think up in a few moments. The major point here is not to take away from Solo players enjoying the game, while trying to provide the framework that does not discourage players from playing in Open.

 

[Aimeryan]

His vision of the game is that PvP would be rare but when it occurs it would be meaningful.

This I have seen. However, is this set in stone? I ask, because it certainly hasn't played out that way so far; have they discarded that? Furthermore, do not community goals and powerplay by their very nature refute this? Basically, a long time ago someone said something, and yet today does not reflect that - should I still accept that something has not changed, or should I be a bit more open with what they may intend now?

In other words, forgive me if I feel that the comment was a relic of a time gone by; I really think we need a more substantial and up-to-date meaning of intent on this matter.

Edit: Odd, why didn't my posts merge together like they usually do? Hmm.

 

[Jockey79]

This I have seen. However, is this set in stone? I ask, because it certainly hasn't played out that way so far; have they discarded that? Furthermore, do not community goals and powerplay by their very nature refute this? Basically, a long time ago someone said something, and yet today does not reflect that - should I still accept that something has not changed, or should I be a bit more open with what they may intend now?

In other words, forgive me if I feel that the comment was a relic of a time gone by; I really think we need a more substantial and up-to-date meaning of intent on this matter.

Edit: Odd, why didn't my posts merge together like they usually do? Hmm.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=140067&p=2145808&viewfull=1#post2145808
Updated information on the game. Some of it has been quoted in this thread.

 

[Aimeryan]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=140067&p=2145808&viewfull=1#post2145808
Updated information on the game. Some of it has been quoted in this thread.

Watching the DB twitch, I'll read the link after.

 

[Roybe]

Well, as you've not followed a single link in my wall of text, or done any research yourself so it seems - you will not have seen DB talking about what ED is and the direction it is going and how player interaction is going to be "rare and meaningful"

I suggest you follow the Twitch link for DB talking last September.
Down to you if you actually want to know.

I would point out that his statements are open to interpretation. 'Rare and meaningful' is currently true. Overall, it is quite rare in Open to run into PvP players. If PvP is meaningless, then there are a lot of folks upset for no reason. When your ship is destroyed in this game it is a memorable experience and filled with meaning. DBOBE has not promised that PvP would be pleasurable for all and would only occur consensually. Just that it would be there and people would care that it is.

 

[Roybe]

If the single players are uncoordinated, why is it not reasonable to expect random affiliation / contribution in any of the modes? On what basis do you expect a different outcome?

You are correct. Uncoordinated efforts result in a distribution curve that is ineffective in pushing an outcome. However, will you at least admit that when people organize, they will affect an outcome? Or do you feel that if a group organized for there will be an equal size group working contra...thus negating each other?

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are correct. Uncoordinated efforts result in a distribution curve that is ineffective in pushing an outcome. However, will you at least admit that when people organize, they will affect an outcome? Or do you feel that if a group organized for there will be an equal size group working contra...thus negating each other?

If you look at the post that Parmo first replied to, you will find I have already done that.