Here's what I am saying...a picture is worth a thousand words...maybe....
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5IhIPwJrrPJWU50SXhDRGxjblE/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5IhIPwJrrPJWU50SXhDRGxjblE/view?usp=sharing
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
All I see are a bunch of clouds and a diamond shape with the words open and private and solo. Not much understanding gained.
The idea is that the players are trying to throw balls into the goal. Those nearest have it easier, those furthest away have more difficulty. Those nearest do not see the inequity of the game...those furthest cannot explain the inequity because those in the front cannot see the inequity.
My point is that there are different ways to make the inequity go away. Promote the furthest away to the place of privilege, demote the privileged to the place of inequity, or make sure the design is such that there is no inherent inequity in the situation at all. This idea is used in discussing societal racial inequity...however, in this case it fits in the most literal way.
It is not important that we agree on the placement of the Private or Open players in respect to each other, as this perception..true or false...depends on your point of view, as the example shows. The outcome is that all goals should be designed in a way that is equal to all. The devs only failed in one event, as far as I am concerned. Avoiding the same type of event..or redesigning the event will take care of the issues I see.
My point is that there are different ways to make the inequity go away. Promote the furthest away to the place of privilege, demote the privileged to the place of inequity, or make sure the design is such that there is no inherent inequity in the situation at all. This idea is used in discussing societal racial inequity...however, in this case it fits in the most literal way.
It is not important that we agree on the placement of the Private or Open players in respect to each other, as this perception..true or false...depends on your point of view, as the example shows. The outcome is that all goals should be designed in a way that is equal to all. The devs only failed in one event, as far as I am concerned. Avoiding the same type of event..or redesigning the event will take care of the issues I see.
Last edited:
like i said the agenda of open ppl when THEY HAVE THE SAME CHOICES EVERYONE ELSE HAVE...
Last edited:
like i said the agenda of open ppl when THEY HAVE THE SAME CHOICES EVERYONE ELSE HAVE...
There have been times when they did not have a choice...or one that was equivalent to 'play your way, or lose'...which to those that play games, isn't a choice. Anyway have fun everyone...I'm going to go play the game!
open crowd choose to have pvp and all the other ppl that slow them down ...but cant accept their choice i guess
If you choose to play with other players then you will have to share your resources with them. That's pretty obvious. You choose to play Open mode where you have to compete with other players. If you want to play cooperatively with other players so that they don't compete against the same resources as you then find or form a Private Group that caters to that.
The problem isn't modes, the problem is certain types of Community Goals. They really shot themselves in the foot with CGs I believe.
Last edited:
Those who are either too busy having fun to care about other players, or those who believe in keeping everyone on an equal footing can see and accept this information.
Alas some folks idea of fun, is messing with other peoples fun. Fair / equal / balance has nothing to do with it, someone people will never be happy - if other people are happy. And of course, the best starting point, a games forums. Start a thread complaining about something that is fine, claiming it is not - and wait for the game Devs to believe it and start patching.
My favorite thing with FD, for over 2 years they have ignored the false claims and carried on.
And I hope they continue to do so.
Solo players cannot see the problem because for them, there is no problem? It's so hard to comprehend that solo players see no problem because THERE IS NO PROBLEM? Much the same way that there is no spoon.
That last little blurb? That's the real issue, methinks. False perception.
Open players blockading trade goals get irate when traders give them the finger and move to solo, where they can proceed unimpeded with their game play, leaving the almighty PvP crowd high and dry. Game mechanic, and damn good one, to boot. Nothing at all wrong with it. Matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say...that's the very reason that its there. So PvP types cannot ruin someone else's game play. Furthermore, the PvP types driving everyone out of open(yeah, like that's actually happening. People are just avoiding the "popular" systems now.) have only themselves to blame for this response. CG's aren't the problem....the PLAYERS are the problem....and that's something that no amount of game tweaking will fix.
It's often being used as an excuse, true. But it can be a real issue.that with cg's is just an excuse for that agenda
It's why, while I'm utterly against any kind of limitation on switching or any kind of outright bonus for one mode, I'm all for tweaking the underlying mechanics common to all modes — which can include the objectives in CGs and PP — so as to not give an advantage to any given mode.
Ideally, a player should choose a mode exclusively based on whether he wants to play with or against others, or alone; in an ideal game efficiency shouldn't factor in this choice, and the game also shouldn't "promote" one mode over another by giving any kind of bonus.
In other words, as long as that balance can be done without giving bonuses to a single mode, or otherwise harming the possibility of players to choose who they play with without any kind of penalty, I think it should be done. I don't want Open killed, even indirectly, I simply don't want it to intrude on Group or Solo.
There's an interesting point here. If Open is tweaked so players aren't slowed down by the interference of others, it also means that they lose the ability to slow others down
Not that I would mind. I can't even see why anyone would find hindering others to be enjoyable. But some players seem to think the possibility of preventing other players from reaching their goals important.
<snip>
There's an interesting point here. If Open is tweaked so players aren't slowed down by the interference of others, it also means that they lose the ability to slow others down
Not that I would mind. I can't even see why anyone would find hindering others to be enjoyable. But some players seem to think the possibility of preventing other players from reaching their goals important.
.........
You can get an idea in some PvP games that do a serious job of ranking players. In a game with a high skill ceiling (and, thus, where skill actually matters) a player in the top 5% can often easily defeat two or more players that are merely average. As in, wipe the floor with them. Kinda like any professional athlete can run circles around an amateur, sometimes even literally.
I see the same thing in many of the kinds of games I play. I remember many players in Guild Wars 2 complaining about the "impossible" jumping puzzles, jumping puzzles that for me were easy even without training (as they should be, as I've beaten almost every Mario game in existence with 100% completion). Kinda why Mario Kart is still my favorite group activity, it evens things out in a fun way by "punishing" the players in the lead with a veritable barrage of items to dodge and otherwise avoid while giving the players behind better items and allowing them to concentrate just on driving.
(It's also why in a game rewarding more the players that display better skill, when the rewards can be used to improve one's performance, is bonkers. This means the game rewards are making the game easier for the players that already find the game easy and making it harder for the players that already find it hard, which is kinda the opposite of what should be done if the intent is to keep the players engaged for the longest possible time.)
Seeing that data has a nasty side-effect, though: for the most part the players that care about the result don't really want to fight, but to win. Give them clear data on how many players are supporting each side and many players in the "losing" side will instantly change allegiance.
It's one of the reasons why most MMOs with factional warfare refuse to tell what is the factional balance in the servers.
Also, like in politics (and Poker), the fight for influencing factions and powers might be intended as an incomplete information game. A game where everyone knows what the opposition is up to has a completely different dynamic than a game where figuring things out is part of the game.
<Snip>[/QUOTE]It's often being used as an excuse, true. But it can be a real issue.
It's why, while I'm utterly against any kind of limitation on switching or any kind of outright bonus for one mode, I'm all for tweaking the underlying mechanics common to all modes — which can include the objectives in CGs and PP — so as to not give an advantage to any given mode.
Ideally, a player should choose a mode exclusively based on whether he wants to play with or against others, or alone; in an ideal game efficiency shouldn't factor in this choice, and the game also shouldn't "promote" one mode over another by giving any kind of bonus.
In other words, as long as that balance can be done without giving bonuses to a single mode, or otherwise harming the possibility of players to choose who they play with without any kind of penalty, I think it should be done. I don't want Open killed, even indirectly, I simply don't want it to intrude on Group or Solo.
There's an interesting point here. If Open is tweaked so players aren't slowed down by the interference of others, it also means that they lose the ability to slow others down
Not that I would mind. I can't even see why anyone would find hindering others to be enjoyable. But some players seem to think the possibility of preventing other players from reaching their goals important.
If there is no sense of defensive strategy, due to the various modes, then logically, Open SHOULD understand there is no defensive strategy to be had, and everyone should just kill NPC's. I'll keep waiting for the PvP folks to wise up.
You get to grind, You get to grind, you all get to grind so you can change the lore of the galaxy!
After a quick glimpse of this Thread and posts, I would like to put through my thoughts, some ideas worth considering (in my opinion)
How about adding a "Danger Pay Bonus" to missions done in Open play (From pick up of mission to final hand in) where the player gets some bonus in pay (say a percentage of the original pay rate, or reputation if thats the reward) as a reward for completing the mission in a more risky fashion. Other ideas might be that certain missions are only available in open play and another is to make more PvP based ships and equipment available to only Open play (as solo play wont need it).
Surely a reward based solution would seem more a legit and "balancer" otion in these cases, as it doesnt stop people from playing the various modes, and doesnt really disadvantage one over the other, only rewarding those doing the missions in a more risky mode.
I know this may have been mentioned before, so consider this my approval of such an idea, but regardless of the result, I still enjoy the game, and hope to see you guys keep up the great work
How about adding a "Danger Pay Bonus" to missions done in Open play (From pick up of mission to final hand in) where the player gets some bonus in pay (say a percentage of the original pay rate, or reputation if thats the reward) as a reward for completing the mission in a more risky fashion. Other ideas might be that certain missions are only available in open play and another is to make more PvP based ships and equipment available to only Open play (as solo play wont need it).
Surely a reward based solution would seem more a legit and "balancer" otion in these cases, as it doesnt stop people from playing the various modes, and doesnt really disadvantage one over the other, only rewarding those doing the missions in a more risky mode.
I know this may have been mentioned before, so consider this my approval of such an idea, but regardless of the result, I still enjoy the game, and hope to see you guys keep up the great work
Grind for the love of the grind.
You can even dance to the grind, the bump n' grind....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXxkNaRkp8
LMAO
the old "I'm not a jerk, I'm just ROLE-PLAYING one!" And quite a lot of players are here to tell you your "enhancements" do not make their game richer.
Define "risk" and "danger". How would you rate various activities?
Last edited:
It is a tough nut to crack. When the "rewards" are to be had only on success, the moment reward-oriented players feel like victory isn't guaranteed they often stop playing. And while open mode in ED might be specially prone to it, this phenomenon happens in every game, be it PvP, co-op PvE, or even solo; ever heard of PvP teams that simply give up if they start behind, or players that give up on a group the first time it wipes?
One potential way of "fixing" it is to reward the effort more than the success. Which is realistic, a soldier or mercenary would expect to be paid even if his side loses the battle. If effort is rewarded, then staying even when one's side is behind starts being attractive — and, more important here, playing defense against other players becomes rewarding even if its not any more effective than just going after NPCs.
As for defensive strategies being effective, AFAIK the game was never meant to have that. Defense, in this context, means being able to exclude opposing players from certain content, which seems to be something Frontier never wanted to be possible; if you have players on both sides that want to play that kind of PvP, fine, they can duke it out in Open, but the game was made so players that don't want to face other players always have the option to avoid that.
I agree with the sentiment. The game has no sense of defense. Because there is no defense available. All that leaves is offensive activities and races based on offensive actions. I have no problem with these except they are only 'won' by pure grind. The ire of those complaining about the top leaders in Power Play is directly related to this. Both of these activities are grindy by nature. Killing x, finding y, moving z, are all repetitive and boring. Races become timed grind. When one mode is more efficient, then that mode will be chosen. When one reward is deemed 'better' that means that Power is in charge.
What I have suggested is, if there are competing race type CG's, then be sure each competing offensive CG has a competing Defense CG. The offensive one, kill x number of NPC's in a CZ. The defensive one is kill x number of traders in another zone...or even in SC, now that we have that capability. These do not have to be equivalent in number...but balanced by availability and time to destroy. There are probably lots of ways to provide defensive content, I'm not a dev. I hope they have more and better ideas on how to address this. Of course, my suggestions are really just adding to the grind...and not being able to come up with anything different, the only suggestion I have is not to have competing goals.
Again, this just leaves offensive type activities, which become, boring, repetitive tasks, to chase numbers.
This still does not address the fact that folks will have to go to Private modes to be effective (which will also become a hallmark of this game), but it clears some of the other complaints from the CG's where this has been an issue.
Last edited:
- Status