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

[Tuub t Tute]

I explained a lot of times how this is unfair. You never did explain why is it fair to you, aside from the "I don't want to interact with other people, but I still want to get the value that the community give" moot.

Please, tell me how it's fair.

He isn't competing with you. He is playing the game how he chooses.

YOU are choosing to FEEL that he is competing against you. Your choice to feel that way, does not represent 100% of the players, regardless of what mode they are currently playing in. Open is a choice you make if you wish to interact with other people directly. It is fair, because you have the choice. I am certain there are other Open players out there who don't ever feel disadvantaged by the mode they play in; other than occasional Combat CGs where the lag becomes unplayable.

It is fair because it is fair! You get to choose how you want to play. You cannot see someone walking on the flat, decide to run up what you believe to be a steep hill and then complain that the guy walking on the flat isn't sweating.
You could walk on the flat too, you chose a path you feel is steeper. The really great thing is other people will choose your path and view it as being as flat as the first guy's path and barely perspire.

It is only you who is seemingly self-inflicting a penalty on yourself and then complaining that you made what is in your opinion a harder choice than the next guy. I don't think I can clarify it any more as I am terrible at MS Paint.

If a side angle of your unhappiness is "I can't win CGs in Open", not everybody can be a winner. You see the same names over and over again at the top of CG charts, as those individuals have the time to devote to CG and the game knowledge to min/max their time. Even if you somehow forced them to play in Open they would still be successful, as they have more time to devote to collecting pixels than you do.

 

[Jockey79]

...
This is again my point, is this clear? It's fairness my only concern, not what you or I want to play. I will always play open because I like risks.

Fairness you say.....

Can you use Open? yes
Can I use Open? yes
Can you use Groups? yes
Can I use Groups? yes
Can you use Solo? yes
Can I use Solo? yes

Well, looks like it is fair. We can all choose what we want.

Argument over, great talk everyone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So? Your point is?
I'll tell you again: we compete in a race, with same prizes and where we are judged on final standing position, but you chose to run in a tank, I have a bicycle over a minefield.
How is that even fair to you? How come that you never see anyone in your race, other than mindless robots (npcs) with predictable behaviours, maybe you come on top and still you pretend that the race was fair? And you want the same prize as me?

This is again my point, is this clear? It's fairness my only concern, not what you or I want to play. I will always play open because I like risks.

My point is that Frontier have clearly stated, and recently reiterated, that all modes and now platforms will share the same GBS. It has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with all players affecting an evolving galaxy - and is by design.

What ship and equipment you choose to use in the "race" is up to you - we all have access to the same choices (in time, subject to reputation / permits in some cases). Your tank vs bicycle analogy is tenuous at best. While there is the possibility of other players impeding contribution in Open, it is not guaranteed - it depends on whether there are any other players in your instance - so it's not a universal truth throughout the whole galaxy - only where other players are.

You choose to play in Open, knowing at the outset that it is possibly not the most efficient way to contribute to CGs or Powerplay because other players *might* affect your rate of contribution - that's your choice.

 

[Meritz]

The shared GBS includes the effects of player action in all modes and on all platforms, in this example, player effects on Powers.

Supporters of a particular Power would presumably have to undertake more of what they had been doing to undo the effects of other players - just like they will have to do with the effects of all of the players on other platforms that they will never meet in-game. Just like they will have to do when players in different timezones or players have ping-times that mean that they will never be instanced with the defenders.

The XBox One and PS4 are two platforms that we know will share the same GBS - while crossplay with these players would be desirable, it may not be possible for one reason or another. The fact remains, there will be even more players affecting the same GBS.

In other words, who has more solo players willing to put in more hours grinding, wins. No strategy. No tactics. No skill.

That's also known as "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking" school of terrible game design.

 

[Jockey79]

In other words, who has more solo players willing to put in more hours grinding, wins. No strategy. No tactics. No skill.

That's also known as "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking" school of terrible game design.

Try reading DBOBE comment in my wall of info regarding how the modes balance each other.

See, you have absolutely no data on who plays in what mode and what mode is more or less effective.
FD do have the data and don't see a problem.

The only problem here, is people are looking for a problem to proclaim there is one. But without any data.....

 

[Lestenio]

In other words, who has more solo players willing to put in more hours grinding, wins. No strategy. No tactics. No skill.

You're looking at the problem as if Federation players are 100% solo and Imperial are 100% open. The reality is both sides will likely have an even mix of open / solo players so its all balanced out .

That's also known as "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking" school of terrible game design.

Great game design as far as I am concerned. Meets the needs of a wide range of players, minimal server costs/maintenance. Works like a charm. So well, I expect you'll see similar games designed this way in the future.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

In other words, who has more solo players willing to put in more hours grinding, wins. No strategy. No tactics. No skill.

That's also known as "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking" school of terrible game design.

And if CGs or PP were locked to Open, it would be "Who has more players willing to put in more hours grinding, wins. No strategy. No tactics. No skill."
If everyone / faction / power has the same options to interdict / disrupt / create blockades, it still becomes a numbers game. You still either pick the winning side or not, there is no difference in outcome.

Open only does not make everyone a winner. What about people without a HOTAS, or an old gfx card, or a slow connection? How can it be fair for people to have different resources to them? There is no such thing as a level playing field for a plethora of players. The issue appears to be the mindset of some players who believe this game is a constant competition and also believe they are being denied their rightful place as "winners" due to malfeasance against them. It isn't true.

For reference I have not achieved better than top 40 in any CG I have joined in with, I usually get bored after 1 session and then go back after completion to get my rewards. So the big tier bonuses come to me with minimal effort, leeching off all those evil Solo min/maxers... I curse them and their dedication!

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

The best way to win power play is to grind until your eyes explode in solo



I used the same style analogy. But the people who replied to me told me that my reward for playing Open was

get this

"other player interaction"

Yes you heard it here folks, because i choose open and get penalised 3x slower rates (cant do shield less trade, cant reset instances etc) i finally get to play a multiplayer game with other people.

Not just any multiplayer game, but an mmo. I mean, playing an mmo with other people, that's unheard of right?

 

[fademist]

Only problem is... Powerplay is not a simulation.

It is completely player driven. So, given that players now determine absolutely everything that happens in Powerplay, is it fair that some players can simply opt out of having to deal with their opposition? Because sure as hell the only defense that can be mounted, the only offense too, is up to the players, not the simulation.

So how do you mount a defense against an invisible, untouchable army?

One that can still hurt and destroy your chosen faction.

us DB himself said: solo players balance solo players ...if u dont understand what he meant go ask him

 

[Jockey79]

Not just any multiplayer game, but an mmo. I mean, playing an mmo with other people, that's unheard of right?

Nothing in the term MMO states people have to play with others.

I spent most of my time in Guild Wars 1 on my own. Just because it has people connected - does not mean they are forced to play together.

 

[Meritz]

You're looking at the problem as if Federation players are 100% solo and Imperial are 100% open. The reality is both sides will likely have an even mix of open / solo players so its all balanced out .



Great game design as far as I am concerned. Meets the needs of a wide range of players, minimal server costs/maintenance. Works like a charm. So well, I expect you'll see similar games designed this way in the future.

Bold statement for a game six months old. Give it more time. Especially with powerplay. Think the rage around the Lugh CG and all the solo/open arguing it spawned was bad, wait until the factions start falling.

 

[PeachingTony]

The competition elements of the game do NOT work in a balanced way in all the game modes.

You only have to look at what happened with CG in combat zones, where far greater reward was gained in solo, to see that. Many players, myself included, who would normally not want to play in solo, were forced to play in solo in order to compete.

PP will be a larger scale example of that in the 'Military Strike' zones.

In my view it's disappointed that a game mechanic PP which on the surface appears to be designed to pit players against each other in competition, will end up doing so primarily through solo grinding wars. There are many opportunities for interesting gameplay aspects that would be missed with this approach, and it will start to feel more like a single player game even for those who hoped, not unreasonably for an MMO, that it would provide rich player-player interaction.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Power Play is pretty much almost exclusively Player-Driven unlike the BGS, which I understand why its tied to being Open to everyone.

It isn't balanced and they way it trickles down to the Background Simulator and the simulator can't interact is kinda demeaning. As it stands, it is a 'massive' competition against players for different ideologies, but you can't see or talk to them. Only via external means, which even then only a small percentage of players will see.

Edit: Community Goals are fine, but when it turns competitive and or control of a system(Ala Lugh) it becomes a question of "Why isn't this tied to Open Play or done better to really bring the players closer to their goals". But then we have SJA's AIs that we'll have to rely on to make things better when we get competitive things I guess.
Out of all the game mechanics that shows a bit of competition, Power Play has to be the one that will benefit the most, being exclusive to Open Play. Especially after the fact that we don't even have means of communicating to them in-game. Power Play isn't that impressive right now.

Edit2: Some Game Mechanics are fine as is (Some need tweaking), but there are some that just would be better if implemented for Open Play or just better balanced imo.

 

[Jockey79]

Bold statement for a game six months old. Give it more time. Especially with powerplay. Think the rage around the Lugh CG and all the solo/open arguing it spawned was bad, wait until the factions start falling.

Not really a bold statement.

David Braben has stated that Solo players balance Solo players. (So there is a mix of players on all sides using all the modes)
There is indeed another game coming out using the same Flexi-player set up.
P2P is a cheap way of networking and keeping costs down.

So far, Lestenio has only said what we all have been told by the Devs over the past 2 years.

A "bold statement" is proclaiming the game is "broken and needs fixing". That is a bold statement, one made without any evidence/ proof or data to support it. Yet Open advocates keep saying it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Not just any multiplayer game, but an mmo. I mean, playing an mmo with other people, that's unheard of right?

.... and a game that can be played alone, and just with friends - just as in the stated game design from the outset and in the advertising for the game. It's not *just* an MMO (whatever that really means).

 

[Brian of Earth]

I was going to post to the thread, but these thoughts are mine as well so in the end I type less replying to this one! lol

I played in Open until I got into CGs and found out what "griefing" and "ganking" was. That is not my style of play and I fail to see why I am obligated to enhance another player's experience who is into that stuff. I want to try group play next, when the groups are larger (I haven't looked recently, maybe they are getting big by now), I would like to fly with like-minded commanders. I may move back to open when it benefits me to do so.

I have that choice. I respect FD for that but will leave this game should free choice be punished. Fallout 4 is on the horizon anyway..

Reward Open players for participating in PP more? I don't care, I want to expand the known universe and get paid for doing so (ultimately I hope that's what I accomplish).

 

[Jockey79]

I was going to post to the thread, but these thoughts are mine as well so in the end I type less replying to this one! lol

I played in Open until I got into CGs and found out what "griefing" and "ganking" was. That is not my style of play and I fail to see why I am obligated to enhance another player's experience who is into that stuff. I want to try group play next, when the groups are larger (I haven't looked recently, maybe they are getting big by now), I would like to fly with like-minded commanders. I may move back to open when it benefits me to do so.

I have that choice. I respect FD for that but will leave this game should free choice be punished. Fallout 4 is on the horizon anyway..

Reward Open players for participating in PP more? I don't care, I want to expand the known universe and get paid for doing so (ultimately I hope that's what I accomplish).

To answer your question regarding groups, the largest one is over 9000 members now and always taking on new members.
The groups section of the forums is always a good place to stop by, to find a group that fits with what you want out of ED.

Sorry you had a rough time in Open Mode, not everyone is a griefer/ganker there, I met a nice player in Open once so they do exist.
Plus if you stay away from the busy systems in Open, it is like being in Solo Mode.

Fly safe CMDR.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Nothing in the term MMO states people have to play with others.

I spent most of my time in Guild Wars 1 on my own. Just because it has people connected - does not mean they are forced to play together.

The word multiplayer in mmo tends to imply more than one player. While it's true not every mmo forces you to group up, they certainly aren't single player.

If you want to say fd wishes to do something different, great, more power to them. They just can't advertise multiplayer with one hand while encouraging solo grinding with the other.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Not really a bold statement.

David Braben has stated that Solo players balance Solo players. (So there is a mix of players on all sides using all the modes)
There is indeed another game coming out using the same Flexi-player set up.
P2P is a cheap way of networking and keeping costs down.

So far, Lestenio has only said what we all have been told by the Devs over the past 2 years.

A "bold statement" is proclaiming the game is "broken and needs fixing". That is a bold statement, one made without any evidence/ proof or data to support it. Yet Open advocates keep saying it.

Can DB promise that they will balance each other? Because I don't see there being an equal amount of solo players in each faction. You think the pirate faction will attract as many a trade faction?

 

[Jockey79]

The word multiplayer in mmo tends to imply more than one player. While it's true not every mmo forces you to group up, they certainly aren't single player.

If you want to say fd wishes to do something different, great, more power to them. They just can't advertise multiplayer with one hand while encouraging solo grinding with the other.

Again, show me where "multiplayer" means forcing folks into playing with each other.

You can play WOW and level up without ever going into a team or group. (Same for EQ2 - another game I play on my own).
As I said, Guild Wars I played on my own - the only people I ever seen were in the forced social zones and I ignored everyone.
I spent a ton of time in EVE on my own mining or running their version of dungeons on my own.
Most of my time in Star Trek Online playing on my own - if you exclude the STFs there is no reason at all to team up with anyone in that game. Again, I don't speak to people in the social zones
Forsaken World I played on my own until my Wife started playing it. Once she out leveled me, I was back to being on my own again.


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/multi
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/player

There is the breakdown, please tell me where it says I have to play with someone I don't want to.

- - - Updated - - -

... Because I don't see there being an equal amount of solo players in each faction....

No, you don't see - because you do not have access to the data.
Unless you do, you have the same information te rest of us has - DBOBE saying that "Solo players balance Solo players"

He has the data.