Simply my friend, you are not a force that stops, or indeed affects anything in-game. No matter how many friends you have working with you, your actions matter not one iota. Not the teeniest slightest wafer thin mint. Only FD can order the background sim to make changes to systems, with the way things currently work. Players can certainly shift balances, but they cannot force change as things stand.
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
Simply my friend, you are not a force that stops, or indeed affects anything in-game. No matter how many friends you have working with you, your actions matter not one iota. Not the teeniest slightest wafer thin mint. Only FD can order the background sim to make changes to systems, with the way things currently work. Players can certainly shift balances, but they cannot force change as things stand.
That's fine. The galaxy is cutthroat and no it doesn't, the background simulator and missions are broken on all three modes. Players have more power than you think. Not having some sort of way to let us monitor the system's sudden influx of influence seems counter intuitive and makes one side prefer another gamemode.
Last edited:
I'm confused, are we talking about CGs or Background Simulator now?
We've been discussing the background Simulator and how it ties to the modes.
Kind of the whole point of this is that players have no power. Powers have power. Players can only exert influence on Powers by adjusting their aligned factions - and they can do that in Solo, Group, or Open. And there is absolutely nothing anyone else can do about that.
you can in Open and begs the question why did they bring up something that is clearly about Competition against Players???????
It's the same in all modes but I wasn't sure because you started to use "contributors" which a term for CGs. Anyway, what does it matter if you see who the "contributors" are? Let's mock up part of your list for you:
1) Andy (Open)
2) Bobby (Open, Solo)
3) Clare (Group)
4) Dave (Solo)
5) Eddy (Open)
What does that do? How does that information benefit you?
perfectly i must say ...
That I agree with. Let's hope they change their minds.
1) Andy (Open)- Contributed Exploration data
2) Bobby (Open, Solo)- Contributed 8 rares, and 8200330 cr trading profit
3) Clare (Group)- Sold things to the black market
4) Dave (Solo)- Contributed X worth of cr incombat bonds
5) Eddy (Open)- Contributed 60 missions
That helps alleviate problems with bug reports and also helps us monitor how certain things inflate or deflate the Background Simulator. Maybe also as people contribute? I really don't like how its the end of the day and doesn't show it growing.
Last edited:
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Ladies and Gentlemen.
This thread has generated more reported posts today than the whole of the rest of the forums.
Go to bed, get some sleep and come back refreshed tomorrow, because this is being closed for a while.
This thread has generated more reported posts today than the whole of the rest of the forums.
Go to bed, get some sleep and come back refreshed tomorrow, because this is being closed for a while.
Why Open and Group/Solo Players Disagree
There have been pages and pages of discussion about this issue and it's quite clear that the two sides might as well be from Mars and Venus, for all the understanding it has generated. I've followed this conversation, and sometimes joined in, but I think there's one aspect that is rarely commented on and it's this -
Players desiring / expecting PvP action kit their ships out very differently from PvE players.
It became quite clear to me in the early beta phase that PvP offered more excitement that PvE, but was not economically viable. Most of the time PvP encounters resulted in a lot of expensive ship damage on both sides, often with one player having to cough up a large excess insurance to replace their destroyed ship. There was usually very little in-game financial reward to be had.
Therefore to enjoy this type of game, you really need to make your money in PvE in order to progress in terms of ships and equipment.
Now some people, myself included, find that PvE is quite satisfying and are still finding plenty of things to do and self-generated goals to keep the interest up. Therefore, whilst I like some of the human player interaction, I'm not looking for continuous PvP action unless I'm in a conflict zone.
Others were mainly interested from the start in PvP, or have got bored with the PvE and have sufficient credits to seek it out.
If you're playing PvE, chances are you equip your ship for what you need to make credits fairly quickly. Therefore you will have significant cargo space, may be more inclined to go for smaller shields, and are more likely use D rated modules to save weight and maximise jump range. You probably have just enough firepower and shields to cope with your expected NPC enemies.
On the other hand, if you're seeking out PvP action then you're likely to fit out your ship with A-rated modules, minimal cargo space, and plenty of shield cells and boosters. If your ship can take a larger class shield generator by sacrificing cargo space, then you won't pass up that opportunity to strengthen your ship. You probably don't care much about the range of your ship, as you're going to hang around in one or two systems interdicting people, so you have the best armour and additional hull reinforcement; who cares about the weight?
When these two players meet in open, the imbalance between ships is obvious. The PvE-orientated player's ship is really just equipped to deal with NPCs. This usually has only one outcome, costs the PvE player several hours of earnt credits, and often ends up in accusations of "griefer" on one side and "carebear" on the other. The PvE player may get fed up with this and play solo or group modes instead. The PvP player laments the lack of skill on the part of the PvE players, which may be true, but could easily just reflect the imbalance between the respective ship loadouts.
Some of the upcoming changes to the crimes system in Powerplay may make things harder for PvP players who prey on PvE players for kicks. However, some of the more recent changes have made things much worse. Shield boosters, shield cells, and to some degree hull reinforcement make this imbalance greater, particularly when you can have multiple modules of the same type. Shield cells are particularly bad in this regard; PvP action can be all about who has the most, or about who makes a mistake by pressing the key too late for the delay (far more likely if you only have one shield cell module). I used to think that shield cells were a good idea, but on reflection this is probably just because the shields take so long to recharge.
Here are my suggestions for rebalancing this:
1. Only allow one slot to be used for shield cells.
2. Have a limit on the number of shield boosters.
3. Change the shield generator recharge rate to make some use of SYS pips (ie. offer some benefit in power management)
4. There should be some penalty in terms of manouverability for adding lots of weight via armour or hull reinforcements.
5. On larger ships, make some of the larger slots 'cargo only'
6. Much more intelligent and aggressive AI towards players with high bounties
Any other suggestions?
One other thought; David Braben said early on in the beta that it wasn't hard to make the AI almost invincible. Perhaps if the AI were stronger in anarchy systems it would be easier for people to get their kicks there.
There have been pages and pages of discussion about this issue and it's quite clear that the two sides might as well be from Mars and Venus, for all the understanding it has generated. I've followed this conversation, and sometimes joined in, but I think there's one aspect that is rarely commented on and it's this -
Players desiring / expecting PvP action kit their ships out very differently from PvE players.
It became quite clear to me in the early beta phase that PvP offered more excitement that PvE, but was not economically viable. Most of the time PvP encounters resulted in a lot of expensive ship damage on both sides, often with one player having to cough up a large excess insurance to replace their destroyed ship. There was usually very little in-game financial reward to be had.
Therefore to enjoy this type of game, you really need to make your money in PvE in order to progress in terms of ships and equipment.
Now some people, myself included, find that PvE is quite satisfying and are still finding plenty of things to do and self-generated goals to keep the interest up. Therefore, whilst I like some of the human player interaction, I'm not looking for continuous PvP action unless I'm in a conflict zone.
Others were mainly interested from the start in PvP, or have got bored with the PvE and have sufficient credits to seek it out.
If you're playing PvE, chances are you equip your ship for what you need to make credits fairly quickly. Therefore you will have significant cargo space, may be more inclined to go for smaller shields, and are more likely use D rated modules to save weight and maximise jump range. You probably have just enough firepower and shields to cope with your expected NPC enemies.
On the other hand, if you're seeking out PvP action then you're likely to fit out your ship with A-rated modules, minimal cargo space, and plenty of shield cells and boosters. If your ship can take a larger class shield generator by sacrificing cargo space, then you won't pass up that opportunity to strengthen your ship. You probably don't care much about the range of your ship, as you're going to hang around in one or two systems interdicting people, so you have the best armour and additional hull reinforcement; who cares about the weight?
When these two players meet in open, the imbalance between ships is obvious. The PvE-orientated player's ship is really just equipped to deal with NPCs. This usually has only one outcome, costs the PvE player several hours of earnt credits, and often ends up in accusations of "griefer" on one side and "carebear" on the other. The PvE player may get fed up with this and play solo or group modes instead. The PvP player laments the lack of skill on the part of the PvE players, which may be true, but could easily just reflect the imbalance between the respective ship loadouts.
Some of the upcoming changes to the crimes system in Powerplay may make things harder for PvP players who prey on PvE players for kicks. However, some of the more recent changes have made things much worse. Shield boosters, shield cells, and to some degree hull reinforcement make this imbalance greater, particularly when you can have multiple modules of the same type. Shield cells are particularly bad in this regard; PvP action can be all about who has the most, or about who makes a mistake by pressing the key too late for the delay (far more likely if you only have one shield cell module). I used to think that shield cells were a good idea, but on reflection this is probably just because the shields take so long to recharge.
Here are my suggestions for rebalancing this:
1. Only allow one slot to be used for shield cells.
2. Have a limit on the number of shield boosters.
3. Change the shield generator recharge rate to make some use of SYS pips (ie. offer some benefit in power management)
4. There should be some penalty in terms of manouverability for adding lots of weight via armour or hull reinforcements.
5. On larger ships, make some of the larger slots 'cargo only'
6. Much more intelligent and aggressive AI towards players with high bounties
Any other suggestions?
One other thought; David Braben said early on in the beta that it wasn't hard to make the AI almost invincible. Perhaps if the AI were stronger in anarchy systems it would be easier for people to get their kicks there.
Last edited:
Elite is a game ported from 1984. There's bound to be imbalances. For example, I have no idea where my fish tie is anymore. I don't disagree with the OP's changelog, but unless he's a Braben relative, I also don't see this going any farther than the other dozens of threads on the same topic.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Ok. Only one new thread merged in overnight 
Thread re-opened for business. Please keep your posts non-personal and On Topic.
Thread re-opened for business. Please keep your posts non-personal and On Topic.
So you want debugging tools? That's very philanthropic but has nothing to do with the modes. The same "problem" would exist, even if the game had only one mode. I really don't think you understand the topic of this thread.
You probably want the suggestions forum. (I wouldn't limit the request to the top 100 btw, that won't help your debugging if there are more than 100 "contributors", it would even make it harder.)
Last edited:
I disagree with some of your assertions - for example I don't need to "make lots of money" to enjoy this type of game. I make enough for my next goal but I'm not in any rush towards the "end game" (not that there is one of course). I've worked up at my own pace doing a variety of tasks. I have about 5 mil in the bank, an Asp, a Vulture and a Cobra, with a few sideys scattered around. My main three ships are more or less fully upgraded for what I need. As far as I'm concerned that's it for me ship-wise, I don't have any desire for bigger ships at this time. Any money I make now is more or less superfluous and secondary - it's an insurance buffer that I make incidentally to doing other things.
Likewise I don't play Solo/Group (with a couple of friends) to avoid the cost of replacing my ship should I lose PvP - I avoid Open because I want to limit my social interaction, mainly for personal reasons (I'm an Introvert).
Your actual solutions, while they look fine to me, really don't address any of the Open/Solo/Group "problems" (not necessarily your fault, your thread got dumped in here to die - welcome, pull up a chair, would you like a drink?
). They are just general ship balancing ideas, 6) in particular would benefit all modes and NPC AI is something that is constantly being improved anyway.
Last edited:
One of the recurring themes in this debate is a sense of outrage that play in the different modes impacts the same universe to the same degree, particularly in the context of a "goal" in the game that the player either actively supports or opposes - whether that's a CG, a power play objective or something entirely community generated. Many of the arguments on either side of that subject come from the gut not purely from reason or logic, and I'm sure that's why the debate gets a little heated sometimes. That, plus the fact that it is a radical departure from what many gamers are "used to" in terms of how these things "should" work.
Looking at it without letting the emotions get involved, it seems to me that there is one thing that this mechanic depends on to work - that when considering a particular goal or parallel set of goals the proportion of participants in a particular mode is an independent variable to the proportion of participants on one side or another. For as long as that is the case, each side will have an equivalent proportion of players in each mode and there won't be any imbalances introduced by the single universe.
Note here that the reason an individual player chooses to participate in the goal(s) in a particular mode is irrelevant - whether they play in that mode all the time and never switch, whether they switch modes depending on their mood or because of some perceived advantage to them from using that mode to participate in the goal(s) doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether they have a balancing proportion of other players opposing them in the same mode or not.
However, it is possible - through poor CG design, for example - to inject a scenario for player participation that artificially links these two variables. One good example of this is a trade goal with an opposing combat goal. If the scenario is simply A:get goods to system and B:stop goods getting to system, without a balancing trade goal for group B to complete and group A to hinder in another nearby system then an artificial linkage between play style/mode selection and the side a given participant chooses has been established. A set of parallel goals that allows equal participation by all involved player roles in the set as a whole is necessary to avoid creating this artificial linkage. This may not have been apparent from the initial design but has been introduced by factors external to that design, such as the fact that the ranks of combat oriented players (pirates, bounty-hunters, mercenaries) naturally contain a much higher proportion of PvP-centric players than other in-game roles do, skewing the membership in those roles towards open play. This must be addressed when designing a scenario to inject into the game by equally addressing all involved in-game professions. A trade goal must be balanced by an opposing trade goal, a combat goal by a combat goal etc.
I therefore conclude that any actual disproportionality of influence or reward to either side based on mode selection is not the fault of the single universe architecture, but the injection of a poorly designed set of goals which have an overall imbalance for play styles which will then be reflected in the modes players on each side select. In my opinion, that is something we can legitimately castigate FD for when it occurs but to ask for tweaks to the underlying mechanic is something we should not be doing. The mechanic is valid, provided FD feed it truly balanced scenarios. They designed the underlying mechanic, they should be able to write sets of scenarios to inject that balance the play styles properly.
FD undoutedly have the statistics internally to do pretty rigorous quality control on this. When they introduce a linked set of CG's for example, they should look at the contributors to the set as a whole and if the proportions of contributors in each play mode is not statistically equivalent on all sides involved and largely similar to the proportion of all players in each mode at that time then they wrote an unbalanced scenario that did not keep the two variables separate. They are as human as we are and since many of them are also experienced gamers they may find it as hard to think outside the box of "how it's always been done" when designing scenarios to inject into the game as we do when playing them.
Looking at it without letting the emotions get involved, it seems to me that there is one thing that this mechanic depends on to work - that when considering a particular goal or parallel set of goals the proportion of participants in a particular mode is an independent variable to the proportion of participants on one side or another. For as long as that is the case, each side will have an equivalent proportion of players in each mode and there won't be any imbalances introduced by the single universe.
Note here that the reason an individual player chooses to participate in the goal(s) in a particular mode is irrelevant - whether they play in that mode all the time and never switch, whether they switch modes depending on their mood or because of some perceived advantage to them from using that mode to participate in the goal(s) doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether they have a balancing proportion of other players opposing them in the same mode or not.
However, it is possible - through poor CG design, for example - to inject a scenario for player participation that artificially links these two variables. One good example of this is a trade goal with an opposing combat goal. If the scenario is simply A:get goods to system and B:stop goods getting to system, without a balancing trade goal for group B to complete and group A to hinder in another nearby system then an artificial linkage between play style/mode selection and the side a given participant chooses has been established. A set of parallel goals that allows equal participation by all involved player roles in the set as a whole is necessary to avoid creating this artificial linkage. This may not have been apparent from the initial design but has been introduced by factors external to that design, such as the fact that the ranks of combat oriented players (pirates, bounty-hunters, mercenaries) naturally contain a much higher proportion of PvP-centric players than other in-game roles do, skewing the membership in those roles towards open play. This must be addressed when designing a scenario to inject into the game by equally addressing all involved in-game professions. A trade goal must be balanced by an opposing trade goal, a combat goal by a combat goal etc.
I therefore conclude that any actual disproportionality of influence or reward to either side based on mode selection is not the fault of the single universe architecture, but the injection of a poorly designed set of goals which have an overall imbalance for play styles which will then be reflected in the modes players on each side select. In my opinion, that is something we can legitimately castigate FD for when it occurs but to ask for tweaks to the underlying mechanic is something we should not be doing. The mechanic is valid, provided FD feed it truly balanced scenarios. They designed the underlying mechanic, they should be able to write sets of scenarios to inject that balance the play styles properly.
FD undoutedly have the statistics internally to do pretty rigorous quality control on this. When they introduce a linked set of CG's for example, they should look at the contributors to the set as a whole and if the proportions of contributors in each play mode is not statistically equivalent on all sides involved and largely similar to the proportion of all players in each mode at that time then they wrote an unbalanced scenario that did not keep the two variables separate. They are as human as we are and since many of them are also experienced gamers they may find it as hard to think outside the box of "how it's always been done" when designing scenarios to inject into the game as we do when playing them.
It's a debugging tool and a method of knowing your opponent, it's a suggestion to a solution of the competitive nature of the game mechanic and how it is implemented in the three modes. Problem is SteveLaw, the Background Simulator also has a competitive aspect of it in its nature. The way the player interact with Minor and Major Factions is apparent as you help them (or harm them to prevent them from expanding) and they in turn, expand. By nature, this sort of game mechanic is competitive and conflicts it within the all three modes, in my personal opinion is The competitive bit should be in Open Play so they openly compete, because of the fact that be it Minor or Major, are actively changing the story of the game and its mainly groups of players that are playing with the Background Simulator's competitive side. The Background Simulator should not affect lone players and small groups that are not actively trying to change the lore of the game. That's where my suggestion comes to also show for the three modes how and who is helping what faction, with the current status we have of the Background Simulator.
This however shouldn't and wouldn't mess with any sort of pay you gain from any missions, as we're simply mercenaries and/or traders and/or explorers for hire. Also yeah, I agree it should show more contributors, I just wanted to illustrate its initial possibilities.
But the competitive side of the Background Simulator and even Power Play, seem to me, given its competitive nature, would be best utilized in Open Play.
Edit: Players are also competing in this mode to get into the lore ala Power Play and the Background Simulator. The Lore of this game is exceptionally interesting.
Last edited:
According to this thread, there is what - 5 people left in Open now (and they spend more time in the thread than the game
)? And according to other threads, they are the "gankers", "griefers" and "exploiters" that everyone else wants to avoid.
Unless FD actually give us some numbers, no one will ever know how many people are where. The crime update may bring more people to Open, not sure why - but it may, for a week or two.
- Status