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

[TheSpaceTexan]

Regarding AI difficulty and behaviour - the game needs to remain playable and enjoyable for the whole spectrum of players, in terms of combat skill among other attributes.

Should the NPCs ever become over-capable then a proportion of the player base will find the game difficult to play / frustrating. If the NPCs are too easy to overcome then gameplay becomes boring. It's a fine balance. It should be noted that the players with the highest combat skills are likely to be less appreciative of the challenge posed by NPCs simply because all players meet the same NPCs but not all players are of the same skill.

Robert Maynard, If I was to give my true and honest opinion on that matter, will I be flagged for "Off Topic", because part of my argument is literally tied into that and I cannot give a serious answer to that without mentioning it and how it conflicts with all three modes. That one mechanic is literally part of the reason why the NPC AI and ship size don't matter. This is also why it isn't sound justifiably in Open against players as well. It is a negative thing across the board.

Let me instead, show you this. Doesn't take long to grind out certain weapons and doesn't take long to learn how to utilize your ship. Especially the Viper, which is a newbie friendly ship. This player at the time, was still fairly new to the game, roughly less than a month and a half and figured out how to do so. A time where the AI was simpler and well, not as menacing as it is going to be 1.3. I am pretty sure a new player could likely do the same, especially now when missions are going to be fairly lenient and paying out more.

[video=youtube;AbXG8yXa2Bg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbXG8yXa2Bg&feature=youtu.be[/video]

I would expect that separate leaderboards would not remove grievances but have the potential to fuel them further by showing definitively how much contribution is made in each mode - something that Frontier has been rather coy about - they have the data but don't share it.

I'd argue otherwise, and it is strange that they are not giving us that information. We need to know who is working against who. That is like, vital to the Background Simulator. Which is something I asked for as well and suggested previously in this very thread.

As I said adding extra NPCs is a better solution than most but it has other considerations such as lag and maximum effective density of ships.

Adding ways to get combat bonds outside of Conflict Zones doesn't make any sense.

Adding a lot more CZs and RESs into each system would seem a better solution. Each individual instance doesn't require any more resources than currently but having many more of them spreads the available resources much more widely among the same numbers of players.

You will never be guaranteed the same resources as Solo players because you choose to compete with other. You choose to share the available resources.

But separate leaderboards for Open, Group and Solo would go a long way to removing the grievances of CGs and PP (as long as PP still uses them) without actually changing other mechanics.

That is literally what would make all the modes fair and destroy the "Risk/reward" argument, the "Imbalance issues" with the three modes, everything. This is what Jockey and I have been saying.

Regarding the one on the Combat Bonds being earned outside, it kinda makes sense. The system itself is at war. Be it Civil War or full scale war. That would reduce the lag as well.

 

[W0OCQCK]

Robert Maynard, If I was to give my true and honest opinion on that matter, will I be flagged for "Off Topic", because part of my argument is literally tied into that and I cannot give a serious answer to that without mentioning it and how it conflicts with all three modes. That one mechanic is literally the reason why the NPC AI and ship size don't matter.

Let me instead, show you this. Doesn't take long to grind out certain weapons and doesn't take long to learn how to utilize your ship. Especially the Viper, which is a newbie friendly ship. This player at the time, was still fairly new to the game, roughly less than a month and a half and figured out how to do so. A time where the AI was simpler and well, not as menacing as it is going to be 1.3. I am pretty sure a new player could likely do the same, especially now when missions are going to be fairly lenient and paying out more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbXG8yXa2Bg&feature=youtu.be




I'd argue otherwise, and it is strange that they are not giving us that information. We need to know who is working against who. That is like, vital to the Background Simulator.

Gonna take a little break, Will come back, when were back on topic.

 

[SteveLaw]

I would expect that separate leaderboards would not remove grievances but have the potential to fuel them further by showing definitively how much contribution is made in each mode - something that Frontier has been rather coy about - they have the data but don't share it.

Revealing information not wanting to be revealed aside, I don't see how it matters. If your rank and prize is dependant only on the performance of those in your mode, isn't that effectively the same as separating the modes? (Which is something frequently asked for.) You aren't competing against those "in invisible mode" and they aren't watering down your contribution.

It won't help with other things such as working influence across modes, but it's still very much debatable that that's an actual problem to be solved anyway.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Robert Maynard, If I was to give my true and honest opinion on that matter, will I be flagged for "Off Topic", because part of my argument is literally tied into that and I cannot give a serious answer to that without mentioning it and how it conflicts with all three modes. That one mechanic is literally the reason why the NPC AI and ship size don't matter.

Let me instead, show you this. Doesn't take long to grind out certain weapons and doesn't take long to learn how to utilize your ship. Especially the Viper, which is a newbie friendly ship. This player at the time, was still fairly new to the game, roughly less than a month and a half and figured out how to do so. A time where the AI was simpler and well, not as menacing as it is going to be 1.3. I am pretty sure a new player could likely do the same, especially now when missions are going to be fairly lenient and paying out more.

I'd argue otherwise, and it is strange that they are not giving us that information. We need to know who is working against who. That is like, vital to the Background Simulator.

Combat with NPCs is the same in every mode - that part of the game is constant, regardless of game mode or mode switching.

Your argument seems to have moved on to combat with NPCs rather than the modes themselves - I am not seeing the link that would mean that the posts were on topic.

Frontier have always kept their data to themselves - the data does not need to be made public for the background simulator to work though.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Revealing information not wanting to be revealed aside, I don't see how it matters. If your rank and prize is dependant only on the performance of those in your mode, isn't that effectively the same as separating the modes? (Which is something frequently asked for.) You aren't competing against those "in invisible mode" and they aren't watering down your contribution.

It won't help with other things such as working influence across modes, but it's still very much debatable that that's an actual problem to be solved anyway.

SteveLaw, understand this is literally the very argument about the Background Simulator. They all are connected and you are essentially competing against those in Solo. It is literally the foundation of that argument.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Revealing information not wanting to be revealed aside, I don't see how it matters. If your rank and prize is dependant only on the performance of those in your mode, isn't that effectively the same as separating the modes? (Which is something frequently asked for.) You aren't competing against those "in invisible mode" and they aren't watering down your contribution.

It won't help with other things such as working influence across modes, but it's still very much debatable that that's an actual problem to be solved anyway.

If the outcome is different in each mode then how does that then get rationalised in the single shared galactic background simulation?

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Combat with NPCs is the same in every mode - that part of the game is constant, regardless of game mode or mode switching.

Your argument seems to have moved on to combat with NPCs rather than the modes themselves - I am not seeing the link that would mean that the posts were on topic.

Frontier have always kept their data to themselves - the data does not need to be made public for the background simulator to work though.

If you went into a player infested zone, you literally will rarely see that many NPCs compared to the other modes. Its pretty apparent something needs to be done there and as SteveLaw, Jockey and I have said, its adding more NPCs.

Player skill unlike how you described it, fluctuates, no one is a pretty delicate flower for long, especially in this game. Player creativity is something that needs to be preserved on all Modes. The controls of this game isn't like other simulators, its very easy and flexible than many games out there. It doesn't take long to fly well. Also, whatever ship the Player flies, is going to reflect their skill UP to a given point. Where they either upgrade or downgrade to another ship. This is also pretty clear as to how they stock it with certain modules.

That data would literally show people and stop the argument if the background simulator is working or if it isn't. As of right now, it isn't working on any three fronts. It also makes bug reports a lot easier to fill in. It'll also show if our missions have any true weight. My group has been testing the Background Simulator for months now, since it officially dropped and we chose to live in the system we did. You have no idea how valuable that data is, it'll help us and other groups like the Mercs of Mikunn make the game better in that respect. We want to make the game better.

If the outcome is different in each mode then how does that then get rationalised in the single shared galactic background simulation?

the problem of why we even have it to begin with. This sort of thing is tough, tough to balance when its on all three modes. It honestly sounds like this sort of game mechanic would be best left suited for the Open and Private groups. One player alone, should be able to expand a faction to basically become a major faction, that requires teamwork and dedication.

 

[fademist]

If you went into a player infested zone, you literally will rarely see that many NPCs compared to the other modes. Its pretty apparent something needs to be done there and as SteveLaw, Jockey and I have said, its adding more NPCs.

Player skill unlike how you described it, fluctuates, no one is a pretty delicate flower for long, especially in this game. Player creativity is something that needs to be preserved on all Modes. The controls of this game isn't like other simulators, its very easy and flexible than many games out there. It doesn't take long to fly well. Also, whatever ship the Player flies, is going to reflect their skill UP to a given point. Where they either upgrade or downgrade to another ship. This is also pretty clear as to how they stock it with certain modules.

That data would literally show people and stop the argument if the background simulator is working or if it isn't. As of right now, it isn't working on any three fronts. It also makes bug reports a lot easier to fill in. It'll also show if our missions have any true weight.




the problem of why we even have it to begin with. This sort of thing is tough, tough to balance when its on all three modes. It honestly sounds like this sort of game mechanic would be best left suited for the Open and Private groups. One player alone, should be able to expand a faction to basically become a major faction, that requires teamwork and dedication.

would be better to remove open completly to end this for good....no more whines no more problems

 

[Robert Maynard]

If you went into a player infested zone, you literally will rarely see that many NPCs compared to the other modes. Its pretty apparent something needs to be done there and as SteveLaw, Jockey and I have said, its adding more NPCs.

Player skill as you described it, fluctuates, no one is a pretty delicate flower for long, especially in this game. Player creativity is something that needs to be preserved on all Modes.

That data would literally show people and stop the argument if the background simulator is working or if it isn't. As of right now, it isn't working on any three fronts. It also makes bug reports a lot easier to fill in. It'll also show if our missions have any true weight.

the problem of why we even have to to begin with. This sort of thing is tough, tough to balance when its on all three modes.

I don't think that many players would have a problem with an NPC spawn rate in particular areas that changed in response to the number of players in the area.

I'm not talking about initial skill, rather plateau skill - not all players will attain the same level of skill, regardless of the amount of time playing.

I doubt that Frontier would want to allow players to dissect the background simulation - for one thing it would allow those who are so inclined to improve their Min/Max play. I expect that we won't see such data.

The "problem" as you put it is simply the reality of the situation - we have been given a game that has promised three game modes, a single shared galactic background simulation and mode switching from the outset - some players cannot seem to accept this situation and look for ways to undermine the status quo in an effort to get Frontier to change the game to suit particular play-styles. This debate has been going for over two and a half years and no change to these particular features has been made - somehow, I doubt that any substantive changes will be made.

 

[SteveLaw]

If the outcome is different in each mode then how does that then get rationalised in the single shared galactic background simulation?

Well that's a different issue again. For the final outcome it would have to be a total or average of them all. I'd say the outcome is more about the BGS and this is where you'd have to say, "no, this bit won't change". But if you change the parts that don't change the BGS and don't add different kinds of unfairness then that's where the compromise comes in. Some consideration is given but a line is drawn.

To be honest at this stage most people would welcome any line being drawn just so we know where it is, because frankly I think it's in a different place now to where it used to be looking at some of the updates since release compared to things said previously.

 

[W0OCQCK]

I don't ever remember team work being a prerequisite to being able to enjoy the game fully?? Hey Jockey, time to post that board of your again. Can't remember that wording exactly. Goes something like your way, with friends, or "ALONE".

IF HE DOES POST IT TEX, READ IT WOULD YA!!

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

I don't think that many players would have a problem with an NPC spawn rate in particular areas that changed in response to the number of players in the area.

I'm not talking about initial skill, rather plateau skill - not all players will attain the same level of skill, regardless of the amount of time playing.

I doubt that Frontier would want to allow players to dissect the background simulation - for one thing it would allow those who are so inclined to improve their Min/Max play. I expect that we won't see such data.

The "problem" as you put it is simply the reality of the situation - we have been given a game that has promised three game modes, a single shared galactic background simulation and mode switching from the outset - some players cannot seem to accept this situation and look for ways to undermine the status quo in an effort to get Frontier to change the game to suit particular play-styles. This debate has been going for over two and a half years and no change to these particular features has been made - somehow, I doubt that any substantive changes will be made.

They wouldn't complain I assure you, especially about the ones that also interact with the players more. NPC interaction is lacking.

I want to see this data regarding the Plateau, because I promise you, I don't think its as big of a problem as you think it is.

Then what is the point of having the whole Background Simulator being tied to the story? What is the point of talking about Liaedin and the conflict arising with the player groups keeping balance of the system there? When its something they clearly put in for us to play with? We've been testing it (Big Harry's Boys, Mercs of Mikunn, AEDC, EIC, etc.) to see how it works, to make it better and in turn, become a Power so that we can become apart of the lore that is pretty interesting to most of us. That is something Frontier said they wanted to involve players with.

The Problem lies within the reality that the three modes are forcing game mechanics to compromise greatly and some of those mechanics, do not give any of the three modes the justice they deserve. There are also unintentional flaws in the game mechanics that allowed for things to be exploited. Which is one of the issues of playing in Open.

They have a line they basically need to walk on to make the three modes I play regularly, fun and exciting.

 

[fademist]

They wouldn't complain I assure you, especially about the ones that also interact with the players more. NPC interaction is lacking.

I want to see this data regarding the Plateau, because I promise you, I don't think its as big of a problem as you think it is.

Then what is the point of having the whole Background Simulator when its something they clearly put in for us to play with? We've been testing it (Big Harry's Boys, Mercs of Mikunn, AEDC, EIC, etc.) to see how it works and in turn, become a Power so that we can become apart of the lore that is pretty interesting to most of us. That is something Frontier said they wanted to involve players with.

The Problem lies within the reality that the three modes are forcing game mechanics to compromise greatly and some of those mechanics, do not give any of the three modes the justice they deserve.

ANd what exacly keeps this groups u mention to recruit ppl that play in solo instead of whineing?

 

[Deleted member 38366]

--- Deleted ---

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

ANd what exacly keeps this groups u mention to recruit ppl that play in solo instead of whineing?

Aside from the fact that we have absolutely no idea if they're contributing to any of their causes?
Aside from the fact that the background simulator seems to favor a sort of bias towards doing missions and being boring in general?
Aside from not working in any of the three modes?

Literally giving us a scoreboard or something that allows us to see that data, helps us not only beta test, but see and warn us of impending dangers that our chosen factions might see in the future.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I want to see this data regarding the Plateau, because I promise you, I don't think its as big of a problem as you think it is.

Then what is the point of having the whole Background Simulator being tied to the story? What is the point of talking about Liaedin and the conflict arising with the player groups keeping balance of the system there? When its something they clearly put in for us to play with? We've been testing it (Big Harry's Boys, Mercs of Mikunn, AEDC, EIC, etc.) to see how it works, to make it better and in turn, become a Power so that we can become apart of the lore that is pretty interesting to most of us. That is something Frontier said they wanted to involve players with.

The Problem lies within the reality that the three modes are forcing game mechanics to compromise greatly and some of those mechanics, do not give any of the three modes the justice they deserve. There are also unintentional flaws in the game mechanics that allowed for things to be exploited. Which is one of the issues of playing in Open.

They have a line they basically need to walk on to make the three modes I play regularly, fun and exciting.

There is no data, to my knowledge, regarding player skill, however I would not expect that all players will reach the same combat skill, for example, regardless of how much they play.

The background simulator is a black box - it is not meant to be peeked into by players - it has inputs that players can affect and outputs that affect the galaxy. To dissect the background simulation is the meta-game, not the game.

What great compromises are you referring to, specifically? Exploitable flaws are hopefully just bugs to be squashed in the next point or sub-point release.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

There is no data, to my knowledge, regarding player skill, however I would not expect that all players will reach the same combat skill, for example, regardless of how much they play.

The background simulator is a black box - it is not meant to be peeked into by players - it has inputs that players can affect and outputs that affect the galaxy. To dissect the background simulation is the meta-game, not the game.

What great compromises are you referring to, specifically? Exploitable flaws are hopefully just bugs to be squashed in the next point or sub-point release.

Until you have relevant data to back you up on that argument, of course player skill is going to fluctuate, its how people work. It is speculation to determine how they truly play, so I can't see what you're getting at here. Aside from "Some players are good, some aren't".

Go to the Bug Reporting sub-forum, its hard to accurately describe potential bugs that could be in fact, just opposing players doing some things. No this isn't meta-game we're talking about, it really is about how lackluster the Simulation is as of now. It is tough to distinguish a bug from a player right now. Also, there are bugs and exploits that are far more common in Open Play and Private Groups (Because it takes more than one player to tango).

The compromises I'm talking about are literally the ones I am now, I hope those exploits are fixed, but from recent endeavors and experience, I am not holding my breath. Better said, I better have a really big gulp.

 

[fademist]

Aside from the fact that we have absolutely no idea if they're contributing to any of their causes?
Aside from the fact that the background simulator seems to favor a sort of bias towards doing missions and being boring in general?
Aside from not working in any of the three modes?

Literally giving us a scoreboard or something that allows us to see that data, helps us not only beta test, but see and warn us of impending dangers that our chosen factions might see in the future.

ok to clarify that for u...
they can made forum for them and coordinate things from there ofc that needs an effort...whine is easier i guess

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

It's not that simple fademist, again, this single mechanic would be best utilized only in Private or Open. In my opinion, favoring Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Until you have relevant data to back you up on that argument, of course player skill is going to fluctuate, its how people work. It is speculation to determine how they truly play, so I can't see what you're getting at here. Aside from "Some players are good, some aren't".

To put it another way, do you expect all players to become equally skilled over time?