I know it's off topic, but you can really do that in your country? In the USA, internet access isn't a government function. If you have a sub-par connection, your only option is to buy a better one, and when one is not available, to wait until a private party brings one to your area. I have friends in semi-rural locals who are still waiting for real broadband just so they can watch netflix.
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
Ya see, I see major problems with separating the modes. I mean there are a ton of players, "I think" that like to bounce around the different modes, liking to dance with the devil occasionally. If you separate the modes your going to lock all these people out of the open mode, "probably permanently". Ya see I think this a very bad thing for open, as I'm pretty sure almost no one will ever make the move if there locked out, and have to start over from scratch. I wouldn't do it. Here we have a saying for that, it's called, "Cutting your nose off to spite your face".
We are more than glad to have anyone join us for the ride, in fact we encourage it! Be it Open, Private, Solo, you all have a place in our selected banner. It is in turn, everyone's banner. Content and Power Play is what's going to allow us to help (Along with many other groups) breathe more life into the game. Anyways, Palladium Clouds are for newbies to help climb the learning curve. We'll need to see what Power Play has to offer and adjust accordingly!
Returning to the topic, the fact that a player with a bounty, who actively kills players in Open and immediately hops to private is a bit damn cheap. That, is a game flaw or just bad in my eye. The pet peeves I have with the whole bounty list is that I can't tell if they're on, and I don't see more than 5 wanted players. I should also know what Gamemode they're in (or just simply have it ignore them if they're not in Open) so I don't waste my time going crazy looking for them.
Maybe also have NPCs wanted and show up on the bounty list as well? You could find them in the system and find them either in USSs/SSSs AND find them in super-cruise. The Possibilities are endless.
Returning to the topic, the fact that a player with a bounty, who actively kills players in Open and immediately hops to private is a bit damn cheap. That, is a game flaw or just bad in my eye. The pet peeves I have with the whole bounty list is that I can't tell if they're on, and I don't see more than 5 wanted players. I should also know what Gamemode they're in (or just simply have it ignore them if they're not in Open) so I don't waste my time going crazy looking for them.
Maybe also have NPCs wanted and show up on the bounty list as well? You could find them in the system and find them either in USSs/SSSs AND find them in super-cruise. The Possibilities are endless.
Last edited:
Well then how do you penalize players for taking advantage of switching one way or the other to make things easier?
As someone else here pointed out--say player bounties--they can go hide in solo. Or likewise, some players can (and have) farmed gigantic bounties in solo only to go to open and let someone blow them up for the reward. I see your point and yes, many probably wouldn't make the switch. But as it is right now it is too easy to flip flop to get the benefits of both without repercussions.
I swear you guys act like it just kills you that other players opt for solo instead of playing with you in open. It's not Frontier's job to provide you with players by discouraging solo play. That's what all these pro-open comments and suggestions eventually boil down to: Make solo unappealing as possible and second-rate as possible, so maybe precious open won't lose a few players. Hate to burst your bubble but solo and group players are every bit as valuable as open.
They are! They equally contribute to ED's bottom line. And we need ED to keep developing the game.
However, open suffers when lots of players trade (or whatever) in solo to avoid the risks in open. So some incentive should be made. Not necessarily a penalty for the other modes.
I never said I thought it was a perfect system. If someone goes out in open and gets there ars shot off, and they want to retreat to solo to build back up, I have no issues with that what so ever, makes perfect logical sense to me. Building up a big bounty in solo and going to open to have someone blow them up to cash in, this needs a look for sure. Having someone that intentionally hides in solo after commuting a serious offense, ya probably shouldn't be that way.
But these are all issues for exploiting, and minor flaws to the system, in need of correcting. It doesn't mean the whole system is bust.
I disagree, the arguments here ensure I haven't clicked the open button for months, changed a lot for me, whilst I agree it is unlikely that FD will change the core concept of the game matchmaking choices, reading the arguments does change the game.
PS "Overall, I completely support the whole Solo/private modes, whatever, its there" vs "it makes sense to diminish or reduce contribution to the factions and maybe Community Goals."
I guess we have a different definition of "completely support".
Keep on asking for Solo & Groups to be devalued, you are not alone, it will ensure people understand your opinions and remember your opinions too.
PS Please do PM me when the goons own their first station, I would be really interested how much commission you take from my trades there in solo, I still have a lot to learn about this game.
PPS Where is our mutual friend Ideasman, I cant even find him via the members page https://forums.frontier.co.uk/memberlist.php?page=4&pp=50&order=asc&sort=username<r=I, I might be misspelling his name, nice guy we had some fun discussions, I was going to ask him to do a sig for me. Did he evaporate or can I not spell?, cheers buddy.
In England, anyone can complain about anything to their MP (Member of Parliament - Think "Senator").
It is up to the MP to decide who they want to listen to..... keeping in mind, whiners are also voters.
The one thing, that ALL British people will moan about, is the speed (or lack of) of their internet.
And if our internet speed is not kept up to date, then we will "update" our MP
See, we love our American cousins, but guys, even with your guns - seem to forget, your political powers only have "powers" - if you say so.
You don't need the 2nd amendment to get a better Senator - you just need to change the Senator regularly enough, they worry about what you want, then suddenly the ballot paper is more hurtful than a bullet
Now we agree on something, its been doing that before the last 10k post thread even started, like the "modes" this thread is a feature designed to deal with a particular problem, the matchmaking they worked out based on previous "problems / features" of other games, this thread (and the last) was more reactive than pro active.
No no, devaluing any of the Modes is not right. Just a compromise to some bits that I see is just conflicting is all. We've had like 12+ pages of us rambling and discussing this and other important bits of the game as well.
There is a catch.
Now I've tried to give ground and say that perhaps in some situations, NPC spawn rates could be looked at.
In Solo, the spawn rates are fine, but if you have 10 people in a CZ - spawn rates are too slow.
What was my answer... improving the spawns would cause lag.
No proof of this, but that was my answer.
So how can we "compromise" with people, who won't even try to view things out of their own perspective?
Those folks have decided the game is broken, and that is it - they won't settle for anything less.
Honestly, flick through the old thread and you will see what I am on about.
I'd suggest turning some phrases or points into a drinking game, but I'm not sure my liver would make it to the end of the thread. lol
Please don't, I am currently on holiday with the family and the nephews wife bought a bottle of spirits for drinking games, if I posted after one of her games I would get a ban, rather than the odd post evaporating
- - - Updated - - -
So did I, until Wheaton and his wife broke it.
I've not watched TableTop since and I used to enjoy that, but cannot stomach him anymore
I only heard of Wheatons law here recently, its a shame he broke his own rules but "his" law still makes sense to me, even if he fell foul of it.
I have a question about this. Leaving aside the argument that it's easier to trade in Solo than Open, why would you then complain when these guys (who are presumably no good at combat, since they've only fought NPCs) come into Open. They aren't a threat to you, as you have schooled yourself the hard way, you should be able to swat them just as easily as an NPC. And I'm not being sarcastic. So they have an Anaconda that they got by grinding in Solo, but surely it's not 'what you've got, it's what you can do with it'.
Pretty much every single proponent of Open play on this thread has gone on and on implying that anyone who 'hides' in Solo or Group, who isn't man enough to take the dangers of Open, must therefore be inferior players, and presumably no good at combat, as all they've ever fought are easy peasy NPCs. Yet you don't want them coming into Open for you to shoot at... Why not?
Adding more ships into the high and low Conflict zones would be perfect. I haven't experienced that much latency from the current Conflict Zones (But I have with the SuperCruise Boogaloo, but that's a visual bug), I doubt it would impact players greatly in Open/Private.
Unrelated: The ship they use and its modules is far more dangerous than the fact they've fought against real players. However, players who play in Private or in Open have a better advantage in terms of how they react to threats, player or otherwise.
Last edited:
So tired of seeing all this "risk" crap. Like a broken record. Maybe solo/group players should start railing that open players are affecting their(persistent universe) gameplay. They don't perhaps because they are more mature.
Last edited:
That's a pretty poor argument. Try harder.
Maybe you're seeing this over and over because it might be true. No, wait, just answer a question...
What scares you more?
1. An AI opponent.
2. A human you have never met before in a ship full of nasty weapons who just interdicted you.
Last edited:
Why "put up" with something in a game if you don't like it, why buy a game you don't like in the first place?, I "put up" with people I don't like in life if I need to, in a game I click another button be it matchmaking or another game. My work boss (or wife/ big boss) will never tell me who I need to play a game with.
You know that this game is peer to peer, and as such the 'servers' that handle those instances are the players' computers, right?
And that for many people even the current limits can already make the game unplayable, with the game becoming laggy and frame rates dropping sharply whenever more than a couple commanders are around, yes?
Without Frontier making the game better optimized I don't think they can afford to increase the size of the instances. That, or else drastically increasing the game requirements, both in the computer specs and required broadband speed, which is something I don't think they can realistically do so soon after the game has shipped. I mean, other long running MMOs often took half a decade, or more, to increase their system requirements.
Actually, individual rewards don't increase. What happens, instead, is that each monster defeated gives to each player as much reward as if the player had defeated it solo, with the extra caveat that each player can't even see what dropped for the others. All the increase in rewards from playing in groups in Diablo 3 comes from killing things faster.
Also, the only thing that increases nowadays as more players join is the monster health, and this since a long time ago. Blizzard initially attempted to increase both monster health and damage, given that character synergies could easily overcome the increased damage and then some, but that resulted in so few players choosing to play in a group that Blizzard gradually nerfed the difficulty of the multiplayer version to the point we have now.
In short, people play Diablo 3 in groups because it is basically far less risky, far less challenging, than playing solo, despite offering the same rewards; playing in groups in D3 is easy mode. If that is your poster child for either higher rewards for higher risks, or risk increasing with group size, you really need to do better.
1. There are ways to deal with player pursuit that mostly guarantee it won't be an issue as long as you escape to Supercruise the first time.
2. There are numerous ways to farm very efficiently in near complete safety in Open, to the point the difference in wealth accumulation compared with the best methods in Solo, even when taking into account how often the player will be fired at or destroyed, is like a rounding error.
3. The number of players you see, and who they are, depend on a lot of factors. Unless you are also from the southern hemisphere, I doubt you will ever see me in game, even if we are both in open at the same station; unless we wing up and set beacons the matchmaking simply won't allow. There are players in open that go for days, sometimes weeks, without seeing anyone else, even on systems that are supposed to be populated.
4. Even if that wasn't an issue, it's very easy to tweak the network settings to never see another player even on open.
5. You don't get to decide what is enjoyable gameplay for me. I backed this game during Kickstart exactly because that thing you find "thrilling, exciting and dangerous" could be completely avoided by just selecting an option in a menu. And from the start the game was heavily advertised as supporting that choice.
You mean, the ones where the multiplayer was basically a cut down Arena PvP? Or the ones that to curb cheating decided to store multiplayer savegames on the servers, and thus don't allow single player characters to transfer over (though many of those do allow 'local multiplayer' using the single player characters)?
Because, apart from those, single player tends to not be separate from multi-player for the games that support both. Games like Diablo and Borderlands have allowed players to change at will between single player and multi-player, with the same character, since their very first iterations were made available.
And, if you think about PvP and PvE, even MMOs changed that a long time ago. As early as 1999 Ultima Online was implementing twin worlds, one of which made PvP by consent only, and allowing players to jump back and forth at will. This is even more pronounced nowadays, as most MMO devs seem to have figured that allowing players to play together with whoever they damn please is more important than preserving someone's sense of entitlement over having done things the hard way, so the games that still have that PvP/PvE divide are increasingly allowing players to just vault across it.
Why do you even want to penalize players? What you should be considering is how to fix some of the issues that make farming in open less effective, like the spawn rate, and discussing ways to make the experience in open more enjoyable in order to attract more players. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
An incentive to one mode is the exact same thing as a penalty for the other modes, and likely will be seen as such.
- Status