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

[ExRex]

I prefer to call that a feature, not a problem. I think it's a pretty good and innovative feature of the game that enables me to avoid the pitfalls of multiplayer (idiots, griefers etc), while at the same time enjoying multiplayer when I can.

I wouldn't change it one bit if I were FD.

EDIT: My armchair developer comment was more directed at the forum as a whole (look at some of the posts regarding the Diamondback for example). I certainly do think the idea to penalize players for wanting to play single player is a terrible idea though. Especially when you consider the backlash against the no-offline mode. If FD want to see almost their entire old-time userbase turn hostile they should do just that.

Your "speaking of which" comment and then adding my quote was most certainly not. Though on the interwebs I take any level of apology I can get.

Right now though, you are right though. It would hurt the user base because certain decisions cannot be remade once people have invested hours into getting used to the mechanics.
However, instead of penalizing solo, FD have successfully buffed Open through trade dividends and shared bounties. I hope they will take it to the next level with future iterations of CGs and make them fun to do in Open also.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Right now though, you are right though. It would hurt the user base because certain decisions cannot be remade once people have invested hours into getting used to the mechanics.
However, instead of penalizing solo, FD have successfully buffed Open through trade dividends and shared bounties. I hope they will take it to the next level with future iterations of CGs and make them fun to do in Open also.

Those are there to encourage people to play in wings. Has it worked? Well from personal experience no, but the plural of anecdote is not evidence. FD alone will have access to the statistics. But I haven't winged up myself more than twice and I haven't noticed PC wings either.

I am going to repost this link for you at this point. Everyone should read it who has an interest in the Solo/Open/multiplayer debate in any game at all, particularly developers. The assumptions that people in Solo are trying to make things easy for themselves, and would happily go to Open if Solo was made less attractive/Open made more attractive, are completely wrong. Changes of that nature will effect the gaming enjoyment of many players negatively without benefitting anyone. There is little point in trying to drag more people into Open to increase the population there.

If the issue is Solo players doing things which unbalance the game because things are easier for them, well this is addressed in 1.3 with more complex AI, making it harder. And in any case those issues are not Solo/Open issues but issues with game mechanics (spawning rates at CZs for example).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Have a look at this post.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=147857&page=2&p=2283961&viewfull=1#post2283961

Mephane gives a more eloquent description than I can.

Interestingly enough i don't see what Mephane said as being a problem. Jumping powers, even if you are willing to mess around going round them all (which will be a pain) will just leave you with a bonus for your current power. Keep the weapons... perhaps you might fit all the unqiue weapons on an Anaconda (and not sure yet, but they may all be fixed weapons... not sure if they have gimballed or turreted, not to mention power requirements for them... need more info), and the shield boosting thingy. And if you ever want to sell your souped up ship, goodbye to some of those weapons (although i doubt anyone would if they had made that effort).

So overall, i don't see much of a problem here.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Interestingly enough i don't see what Mephane said as being a problem. Jumping powers, even if you are willing to mess around going round them all (which will be a pain) will just leave you with a bonus for your current power. Keep the weapons... perhaps you might fit all the unqiue weapons on an Anaconda (and not sure yet, but they may all be fixed weapons... not sure if they have gimballed or turreted, not to mention power requirements for them... need more info), and the shield boosting thingy. And if you ever want to sell your souped up ship, goodbye to some of those weapons (although i doubt anyone would if they had made that effort).

So overall, i don't see much of a problem here.

Well the problem depends on your point of view. What Powerplay was intended to introduce, many of us thought, were joinable factions you could align yourself with. We (or at least I) were led to believe that once aligned with said factions you'd be competing with rival factions and co-operating with people in your own faction. But what they've actually introduced, from what I have seen so far, is a set of glorified community goals encapsulated within a PvP fest. The way it's set up, with you needing to reach a certain level against others in your own faction, makes you not only compete with other powers but also those in your own faction. Given that how unimmersive is it and how easy is it to get attached to your own faction?

Even worse, this has introduced a very pretty severe conflict of interest. To get the benefits of your own faction you had better hope that the other players within your faction do poorly. That's right, it's actually better for you if your faction is made up of the poorest players. But that also means your faction might do poorly in relation to others, and has shrinking territory.

EDIT: This could easily be resolved by having rewards given on the basis of how long you've been in the faction (to insure loyalty) and how well the faction overall does (to insure you play in it).

As design goes it seems... poor, muddled, schizophrenic even. It's like it was designed by two different people trying to do something very different and coming up with something that works for neither application. But as I say, arm-chair developers (and I include myself in that) second guessing the game devs. So I'm not going to start a new thread about it.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Going back to the whole which is better to influence the background sim, CGs and all that cool stuff.

It really is just plain and simple, better to do things in private or in solo. You don't get the social aspect from hindering your proposed cause. I'd like to use the example of AEDC and CODE in the Lave Cluster, where AEDC originally in Open, failed to beat CODE and kick them out of Leesti. AEDC then retreated to AEDC and from my understanding, is still actively, doing missions to solely kick them out with no opposition aside from missions to turn into the influence.

That isn't fair at all to the group that's in open, it goes from real conflict and fun, to a boring snoozefest of a grind. And an unfair 100% contribution to Open, Private and Solo, grindfest.

 

[ExRex]

Those are there to encourage people to play in wings. Has it worked? Well from personal experience no, but the plural of anecdote is not evidence. FD alone will have access to the statistics. But I haven't winged up myself more than twice and I haven't noticed PC wings either.

I am going to repost this link for you at this point. Everyone should read it who has an interest in the Solo/Open/multiplayer debate in any game at all, particularly developers. The assumptions that people in Solo are trying to make things easy for themselves, and would happily go to Open if Solo was made less attractive/Open made more attractive, are completely wrong. Changes of that nature will effect the gaming enjoyment of many players negatively without benefitting anyone. There is little point in trying to drag more people into Open to increase the population there.

If the issue is Solo players doing things which unbalance the game because things are easier for them, well this is addressed in 1.3 with more complex AI, making it harder. And in any case those issues are not Solo/Open issues but issues with game mechanics (spawning rates at CZs for example).

Thx! Will read it asap.

edit: teehee, it's a Yahtzee blog. That will give your argument an instant ethos boost!

 

[Jockey79]

I'm on my phone, my sig doesn't work.

I think I should get a buff because I'm at a Disadvantage.

So, when do I get mod status?

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

I'm on my phone, my sig doesn't work.

I think I should get a buff because I'm at a Disadvantage.

So, when do I get mod status?

I'm just hoping it just doesn't turn into a grindfest.

Also, why can't we delegate Players to Power positions under the leader to essentially help herd the cats to the objective of their choosing? We're now essentially arguing with one another to help move a blob, instead of the blob looking out for its members below. And if someone times to sabotage or isn't helping the group, they could get voted out via the members at the bottom. It just seems super weird to have a mechanic that basically requires real player strategies, and leave it leaderless and just let the mob mentality flow.

Some of the mechanics right now being implemented are better suited for player controlled stuff. Which is why I heavily implore some sort of thing contributing more to Groups doing their thing for whatever group, not just open. Alone we're insignificant.

Also Powers are entirely separated from Major Factions and Minor factions alike, which is terrifying for groups trying to work their way into a Power.

 

[Razeth]

The whole open vs solo debate is Silly. We should be focused on how to INCREASE player interaction for those who want to play in open. If I'm going to trade in open why not give me something extra for doing that and recognize that the risk is greater but that by playing in open I am also providing a great experience for any would be bounty hunter, pirate, or rival faction member. Someone playing in Solo play is by definition not providing this potential experience and player interaction to others.

Clearly the ideas are:
1. Increased group profits/missions - we see this already with trade dividends. But larger missions only obtainable with 2+ players would be fun!
2. Increased CG activity

Anyone arguing about solo/group play is basically stating that they don't want to interact with players. Be it a player pirate interdicting them, or someone messing up their CG contribution. I'd argue that solo/group play should be left alone, let them influence the background simulation. However, open play as stated above not only increases your risk in various activities such as trading or CG but it also allows you to provide a very interesting experience for another player by providing INTERACTION. Why not increase or give incentives for this? It would seem to me that this is how the game is going to thrive in the long term.

 

[fademist]

The whole open vs solo debate is Silly. We should be focused on how to INCREASE player interaction for those who want to play in open. If I'm going to trade in open why not give me something extra for doing that and recognize that the risk is greater but that by playing in open I am also providing a great experience for any would be bounty hunter, pirate, or rival faction member. Someone playing in Solo play is by definition not providing this potential experience and player interaction to others.

Clearly the ideas are:
1. Increased group profits/missions - we see this already with trade dividends. But larger missions only obtainable with 2+ players would be fun!
2. Increased CG activity

Anyone arguing about solo/group play is basically stating that they don't want to interact with players. Be it a player pirate interdicting them, or someone messing up their CG contribution. I'd argue that solo/group play should be left alone, let them influence the background simulation. However, open play as stated above not only increases your risk in various activities such as trading or CG but it also allows you to provide a very interesting experience for another player by providing INTERACTION. Why not increase or give incentives for this? It would seem to me that this is how the game is going to thrive in the long term.

most ppl at solo dont want any interaction with other player though......
and im starting to think that the seperate solo maybe is good idea with the pp changes.... but will see how PP will when come to live...

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

I'm afraid it'll turn into a grindfest. Like I stated, Minor/Major Factions are entirely independent of the Power Plays. So instead of helping fix the problem with one, they've practically isolated it and put down another.

 

[fademist]

I'm afraid it'll turn into a grindfest. Like I stated, Minor/Major Factions are entirely independent of the Power Plays. So instead of helping fix the problem with one, they've practically isolated it and put down another.

i add that they made 1 problem that maybe is bigger than the other...casual with PP goodies got scr ;p

 

[Daffan]

PowerPlay. Where 99% of the control, capturing and FIGHTING between factions will be done in Solo Battlegrounds.

1) Solo has more NPCs for 1 player.

2) Solo has no chances of dying. Max offence, zero defense

3) Other players cant even defend/attack in PowerPlay because the opposition are undermining their power while being invisible.

My proof?

Community Goals. The top 5% were always people grinding in solo. More NPCS, No opposition, zero risk and maximum reward. Precedence has already been set.

 

[fademist]

PowerPlay. Where 99% of the control, capturing and FIGHTING between factions will be done in Solo Battlegrounds.

1) Solo has more NPCs for 1 player.

2) Solo has no chances of dying. Max offence, zero defense

3) Other players cant even defend/attack in PowerPlay because the opposition are undermining their power while being invisible.

My proof?

Community Goals. The top 5% were always people grinding in solo. More NPCS, No opposition, zero risk and maximum reward. Precedence has already been set.

And many have proved on this thread that the same thing can happen to open too maybe not all the time but can happen

 

[Roland2]

The whole open vs solo debate is Silly. We should be focused on how to INCREASE player interaction for those who want to play in open. If I'm going to trade in open why not give me something extra for doing that and recognize that the risk is greater but that by playing in open I am also providing a great experience for any would be bounty hunter, pirate, or rival faction member. Someone playing in Solo play is by definition not providing this potential experience and player interaction to others.

Clearly the ideas are:
1. Increased group profits/missions - we see this already with trade dividends. But larger missions only obtainable with 2+ players would be fun!
2. Increased CG activity

Anyone arguing about solo/group play is basically stating that they don't want to interact with players. Be it a player pirate interdicting them, or someone messing up their CG contribution. I'd argue that solo/group play should be left alone, let them influence the background simulation. However, open play as stated above not only increases your risk in various activities such as trading or CG but it also allows you to provide a very interesting experience for another player by providing INTERACTION. Why not increase or give incentives for this? It would seem to me that this is how the game is going to thrive in the long term.

Why increase or give incentives to this? The ability to interact is your incentive for playing open. If it's not enough incentive for you, don't play open. It's your choice.

As for group not wanting interaction, what do you think "group" means? granted, you could have a "group" of one, but I think most people when they talk about groups, are referring to more then one player, therefor player interaction.

Your idea 1, "Increase group profits/missions" contradicts your last paragraph stating that "solo/group play should be left alone"

 

[Roland2]

PowerPlay. Where 99% of the control, capturing and FIGHTING between factions will be done in Solo Battlegrounds.

1) Solo has more NPCs for 1 player.

2) Solo has no chances of dying. Max offence, zero defense

3) Other players cant even defend/attack in PowerPlay because the opposition are undermining their power while being invisible.

My proof?

Community Goals. The top 5% were always people grinding in solo. More NPCS, No opposition, zero risk and maximum reward. Precedence has already been set.

I bolded and underlined your point number 2. What makes you thing there is "no chances of dying" in Solo? Do you play in solo? If not, how do you know there is no chance of dying. I have read many stories of people dying in solo and I have died there also, this counters your point.

As for your "proof", I'll take your word that the top 5% in a CG were grinding in solo. I personally don't know if it's true, but for the sake of argument, lets say it is. How do you know your three points were contributing factors? Unless you were all the people in the top 5%, there is no way you can know what the factors were. You are guessing, not proving anything.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

It seems the AI is now more 'human'. They use chaff, shield cells, heat sinks, etc. and use their shield cells the moment their shields come back up.

 

[fademist]

It seems the AI is now more 'human'. They use chaff, shield cells, heat sinks, etc. and use their shield cells the moment their shields come back up.

yeap they have been improved ;p

 

[Cody]

It seems the AI is now more 'human'. They use chaff, shield cells, heat sinks, etc. and use their shield cells the moment their shields come back up.

They will improve even more, become even more dangerous I expect - I certainly hope so.
Strange though it may seem, we 'cowards' hiding in the cupboard welcome even tougher NPCs!

 

[NeilF]

I'm afraid it'll turn into a grindfest. Like I stated, Minor/Major Factions are entirely independent of the Power Plays. So instead of helping fix the problem with one, they've practically isolated it and put down another.

Well, my main two concerns with Powerplay were:-
1) Powerplay would give people better results for their time in Solo/Group as it would ultimately be easier to not risk meeting more challenging/organized humans. So it would actually reward people for playing "offline", thus making people choose "offline."
2) Powerplay would end up simply organizing/orchestrating *mass grinds* rather than introducing new more interesting/deep gameplay mechanics/missions etc.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems the AI is now more 'human'. They use chaff, shield cells, heat sinks, etc. and use their shield cells the moment their shields come back up.

Fingers crossed! Be nice if people start moving to Online for a respite from the AIs