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

[Derath]

The ability to choose who you play with and who you don't remains a choice - its simple

You want to be able to choose who you play with, by switching modes

I want to be able to choose who I play with, by playing with people I know played open

These two choices are even and equal, they chose #1 - that is a design choice, it doesn't mean its right or best, everyone who wants to flip-flop is benefited, everyone who doesn't is penalized thats literally all there is to it and that is my only point.

However the high horses of the non pvp crowd continue to irritate me so I feel compelled to point this out, it was a choice they made, probably based on the number of players that would prefer it, it doesn't mean the current way is "fair" one group gains the other loses, they chose like this because the group that gains will almost certainly be larger than the one that doesn't.

 

[SteveLaw]

The ability to choose who you play with and who you don't remains a choice - its simple

You want to be able to choose who you play with, by switching modes

I want to be able to choose who I play with, by playing with people I know played open

These two choices are even and equal, they chose #1 - that is a design choice, it doesn't mean its right or best, everyone who wants to flip-flop is benefited, everyone who doesn't is penalized thats literally all there is to it and that is my only point.

How are you penalised for not flip-flopping? Your choice to not do that is not compromised just because others do. Both of those choices you present are not mutually exclusive, they are both true.

 

[CreepyD]

I'm going to chime in once more in this debate.

Trading / piracy parts of the game go hand in hand.
The last few comments are simply saying that by allowing players to play Solo you're denying pirates to play the way they want to play, which is a perfectly legit way of playing.
Some will want to trade and others will want to pirate traders - that IS the game and there's no getting away from that fact (or apparently there is).

Sure you can play it your way, but going Solo to avoid such piracy means your not even playing the same game surely?

Would you allow someone to play Unreal Tournament in solo mode simply because they like gathering weapons and pickups without people shooting them all the time? All the while allowing them to rack up frags on the scoreboard? No of course not..
That's exactly what's happening here imo.

Elite: Safe and Sound.

 

[SteveLaw]

The last few comments are simply saying that by allowing players to play Solo you're denying pirates to play the way they want to play, which is a perfectly legit way of playing.

I am denying you from pirating me but I am not denying you from pirating.

Sure you can play it your way, but going Solo to avoid such piracy means your not even playing the same game surely?

How I play my game is no business of yours. I don't tell you how to play stop telling me how I should play.

 

[Mohrgan]

So, why is your gaming code of ethics superior to anyone elses? Just how do you justify imposing your rules on others? I can see you being frustrated for not getting the action you want, but the games rules just don't support your opinions. The best you can ask for is that there are enough players who share your views out there for you to tussle with. Those are the guys you want to fight with anyhow. Not some milk-toast Group player like me.

 

[Derath]

How are you penalised for not flip-flopping? Your choice to not do that is not compromised just because others do. Both of those choices you present are not mutually exclusive, they are both true.

Because the game is different if you play open all the time compared to if you play solo all the time, this difference ranges from extremely small if you go to the edge of space and hang out there to do whatever you want, but its enormous when it comes to taking part in things like community goals.

 

[MegaJohnny]

I'm pretty sure NPCs are (as designed, anyway) the bulk of what you interact with in this game. If that's not up to snuff it's spawn rates that are the problem, not instancing modes.

 

[Derath]

So, why is your gaming code of ethics superior to anyone elses? Just how do you justify imposing your rules on others? I can see you being frustrated for not getting the action you want, but the games rules just don't support your opinions. The best you can ask for is that there are enough players who share your views out there for you to tussle with. Those are the guys you want to fight with anyhow. Not some milk-toast Group player like me.

This arguments circular, think about it, and my view isn't that it should be one way or the other, its that the current choice was a choice, nothing more and like all choices it has downsides and upsides.

Ok strictly speaking i'd prefer it if it was open only and solo only, however I have no problem with their current implementation and know exactly why it is the way that it is.

 

[SteveLaw]

Because the game is different if you play open all the time compared to if you play solo all the time, this difference ranges from extremely small if you go to the edge of space and hang out there to do whatever you want, but its enormous when it comes to taking part in things like community goals.

So what? If you stay in Open then your game isn't affected.

 

[Derath]

So what? If you stay in Open then your game isn't affected.

Yes it is, we'll take the easiest comparison, lets take the first community goal at Yembo

I can absolutely guarantee you 100% that the top 5% contributors were in solo, why, if their game isn't affected?

 

[Roland2]

You guys are physically incapable of understanding this argument it seems, yes I am aware physical limitations stop you doing any activity that actually matters like blockading however all of you are saying my view matters and yours doesn't, and your view is apparently everyones play is equal (except when it isn't)

"Our freedoms to choose how to play the game stop at the point where our choice would require another player to play in a way that they do not want to." This is solo, you require another player to play in a way they do not want to.

Forcing someone to fight is exactly the same as forcing somebody who wants to not to.

Thats all well and good, it depends what game your trying to make however, much like the combat logging debate it needs to be realised that its a choice to benefit one player type over another nothing else. That is a design choice, but stop denying it or trying to make out that its fair.

The part I underlined and applied Bold, makes no sense to me what so ever. How can you be forced not to do something in this game? You may not be able to do things not designed into the game, such as blockades, and the swords and monsters previously talked about, but where PvP is concerned you are not forced to "not do" anything. Can you shoot anyone you find in open, yes. Can you shot someone who doesn't want to be shot, but are in open, Yes. Can you shoot someone who is in solo, no. That was not, and all indications will never be, part of the design of the game.

This is yet another argument where you've attempted to disagree with me, yet actually all you've written is that any form of real PvP is removed by open/solo, cause your totally right comparing meaningful PvP to ED is exactly the same as me asking to be able to kill monsters with swords, because they are both fundamentally impossible currently, and always will be as long as solo and open are the same universe.

This also doesn't make any sense to me. Please define "real PvP", as opposed to "unreal"? PvP. Also, your definition of "meaningful PvP" may be different from others, and different from Frontier, and therefor fall into the "not designed in this game" category.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You guys are physically incapable of understanding this argument it seems, yes I am aware physical limitations stop you doing any activity that actually matters like blockading however all of you are saying my view matters and yours doesn't, and your view is apparently everyones play is equal (except when it isn't)

"Our freedoms to choose how to play the game stop at the point where our choice would require another player to play in a way that they do not want to." This is solo, you require another player to play in a way they do not want to.

Forcing someone to fight is exactly the same as forcing somebody who wants to not to.

Thats all well and good, it depends what game your trying to make however, much like the combat logging debate it needs to be realised that its a choice to benefit one player type over another nothing else. That is a design choice, but stop denying it or trying to make out that its fair.[/COLOR]

I doubt that anyone here is "physically unable" to understand the argument you make - what I have been saying is that the desire of PvP players to force interaction with others is not supported by the core game features.

If a player is prepared (at any level) for a PvP interaction then they will select Open play. If they are not, they won't.

Combat logging is a different issue altogether. Gracefully leaving the game (with or without the 15 second "in danger" delay provided in the exit menu system) is not combat logging. Killing the process or connection is. Combat logging has been designated an exploit and players that do so will, presumably, be punished in some way.

It is clear that there are opponents to some of the design choices relating to the core features of the game - just as there are proponents of those design choices.

 

[Derath]

This also doesn't make any sense to me. Please define "real PvP", as opposed to "unreal"? PvP. Also, your definition of "meaningful PvP" may be different from others, and different from Frontier, and therefor fall into the "not designed in this game" category.

I can't actually answer this, because combo modes actually make it impossible (that's kind of the point) If i listed anything i'd merely get swamped by the hundreds of solo'ers shouting "you can't do that" I mean I already posted once and mentioned blockades and got 5 posts instantly telling me I couldn't do it

 

[Seonid]

This arguments circular

And they have been for a very long time, which is why this thread exists. The statements by FD however, are not.

 

[SteveLaw]

Yes it is, we'll take the easiest comparison, lets take the first community goal at Yembo

I can absolutely guarantee you 100% that the top 5% contributors were in solo, why, if their game isn't affected?

We were talking about PvP weren't we? When did we randomly change to CGs? CG ladders should be separated by mode, I've said for a long time, but I think CGs are generally stupid and I don't bother with them. But really the CG issue isn't really a massive one. All it means is that if you are really that bothered about getting in the top tier you will need to do it in Solo because all the other players in Open will get in your way. If playing "only Open" is more important to you then this is one of the compromises you have to make for getting player Interaction.

Alternatively you could play a Group with other players who think like you. Agree that outside of CGs PvP is fair game but during a CG you don't attack each other. That would cover both of your wishes.

 

[Derath]

It is clear that there are opponents to some of the design choices relating to the core features of the game - just as there are proponents of those design choices.

You clearly do understand, as this sentence says it all - but too many people here think that the combination of Solo and Open is a rainbow of joy and happiness that benefits everyone, as you've said here

" what I have been saying is that the desire of PvP players to force interaction with others is not supported by the core game features."

The only core game feature that prevents those interactions is the inclusion of solo, in an open multiplayer.

 

[SteveLaw]

The only core game feature that prevents those interactions is the inclusion of solo, in an open multiplayer.

Your assumption is that the game is Open multiplayer with Solo tacked on. It has been both from before it was even created.

 

[Derath]

We were talking about PvP weren't we? When did we randomly change to CGs? CG ladders should be separated by mode, I've said for a long time, but I think CGs are generally stupid and I don't bother with them. But really the CG issue isn't really a massive one. All it means is that if you are really that bothered about getting in the top tier you will need to do it in Solo because all the other players in Open will get in your way. If playing "only Open" is more important to you then this is one of the compromises you have to make for getting player Interaction.

Alternatively you could play a Group with other players who think like you. Agree that outside of CGs PvP is fair game but during a CG you don't attack each other. That would cover both of your wishes.

Its all rolled together is my point, I can indeed do casual pvp right now i can fly around, find somebody else and have myself a brap brap party, however I can't do anything beyond that.

I'd love it if they seperated CG's btw but that in itself is an admission of the fact solo & open don't always work, perhaps if they made more things like that it would genuinely be better to have the modes together.

- - - Updated - - -

Your assumption is that the game is Open multiplayer with Solo tacked on. It has been both from before it was even created.

If it was both, solo would be offline, solo is infact a bandaid to cover the fact they couldn't work out how to make a singleplayer for the people who really wanted it, its the next best solution to try and give those players a way to play. I mean come on.... Even the people who wanted singleplayer and went ape when they said they wouldn't have one know solo was a tacked on solution :/

 

[SteveLaw]

Its all rolled together is my point, I can indeed do casual pvp right now i can fly around, find somebody else and have myself a brap brap party, however I can't do anything beyond that.

Why not? And how would my being in Open change that?

I'd love it if they seperated CG's btw but that in itself is an admission of the fact solo & open don't always work,

No, it's an admission that Community Goals reward ladders don't really work.

If it was both, solo would be offline, solo is infact a bandaid to cover the fact they couldn't work out how to make a singleplayer for the people who really wanted it, its the next best solution to try and give those players a way to play.

No. I wasn't here, others will probably explain it better, but Open/Solo/Group predated Offline. Solo wasn't a replacement for Offline, Offline was proposed as a additional mode.

 

[Derath]

No, it's an admission that Community Goals reward ladders don't really work.

why don't they work?