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

[Cody]

... know solo was a tacked on solution

Erm... no, it wasn't, it was there from the start!

 

[SteveLaw]

why don't they work?

Because some Open players complain that it isn't fair because their choice of interaction interferes with their earning potential and refuse to switch to Solo/Group to mitigate the problem. It seems that they want both interaction and no interaction at the same time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

For clarity of the source of a quote, please use "reply with quote" - this leaves the attribution and clearly shows the quoted text in a quote box.

The existence of Solo is not the only core game feature that prevents any forcing of these interactions - the existence of Private Groups and game mode switching on a session-by-session basis do too. All of these have been part of the stated game design from the outset, over two and a half years ago - they have not changed despite vigorous debate on the topic....

Given that DBOBE has stated that there is "no right way to play the game" I really don't expect that any of these features will be changed to remove choices available to all players purely for the benefit of players who wish to enforce their play-style on others.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

This last few pages seem to be concentrating on the "People switching to Solo to avoid X,Y,Z" are the problem."

Really this is a stalking horse argument, because if for whatever reason FDev turned round in the future and said "Right, we can't be bothered with this whinefest any longer, next time you log in you get to pick your mode and from then on the other two are greyed out"...

The very first thing that would be posted would be: "Right, now we in Open demand separation of PP / CG and anything else we perceive as being impacted by "non-Open" existing. If you think about it in those terms, it all boils down to "Oh bum, I really didn't understand the depth of interplay between the three game modes and on finding out, I've decided the game is wrong and it needs to be changed to suit my perception of what it should be..."

Personally, I have played all three modes, the one I would miss least would be Open. I have participated moderately in CGs and have yet to pledge to PP, so neither of those are of particular interest or loss to me, if used as a bargaining chip.

As an aside, has anyone ever tried to organise an "open without the lamers and station griefers" group, like the M word but with pew pew? Surely there must be thousands of traders out there wanting to participate in safe, consensual, sane pvp?...

 

[Robert Maynard]

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 :/

You seem to be under a misapprehension. Offline mode was added later in the Kickstarter than the three game modes that we have. The three (online) game modes have existed from the outset of the Kickstarter pitch, along with the ability of players to switch modes at will. From the Kickstarter FAQ (note the date):

How does multiplayer work?

You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.

You will be able to save your position in certain key places (probably just in space stations, but possibly while in hyperspace too, if we feel it is needed). A save-and-quit option will be freely available at those points, as will the subsequent reload, but there will be a game cost for a reload following player death. Your ship will still be intact in the condition it was when the save occurred, but there will be a game currency charge (referred to as an insurance policy) for this. This is to prevent the obvious exploit of friends cooperating and killing each other to get each other’s cargo. If you can’t pay, then it will accumulate as an in-game debt, and the police may chase you!

There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.

We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.

Last updated: Wed, Nov 14 2012 12:52 PM BST

 

[PhazonAran]

As an aside, has anyone ever tried to organise an "open without the lamers and station griefers" group, like the M word but with pew pew? Surely there must be thousands of traders out there wanting to participate in safe, consensual, sane pvp?...

Since they all want to be the wolves, they want the sheeps to be forced to play with them... That's the problem.

"But Open is not all about pew pew ! I just want player interaction !"

Why would you want to interact with people that DO NOT WANT to interact with you ?

 

[SteveLaw]

As an aside, has anyone ever tried to organise an "open without the lamers and station griefers" group, like the M word but with pew pew? Surely there must be thousands of traders out there wanting to participate in safe, consensual, sane pvp?...

It's been suggested many times, I know that much. Don't remember what the excuses were to be honest.

 

[CreepyD]

Is there really a difference between these two things?
1. Oh crap I'm being attacked by a pirate, I'll log off quick.
2. Oh crap there are pirates in this system, I'll go into Solo mode.

One is an exploit and will get a player punished, and yet the other perfectly acceptable?
That's a very fine line indeed.

 

[PhazonAran]

Is there really a difference between these two things?
1. Oh crap I'm being attacked by a pirate, I'll log off quick.
2. Oh crap there are pirates in this system, I'll go into Solo mode.

One is an exploit and will get a player punished, and yet the other perfectly acceptable?
That's a very fine line indeed.

The pirate did not engage in the second case. It's exactly the same as jumping to another system to nover come back IMO.

 

[Robert Maynard]

As an aside, has anyone ever tried to organise an "open without the lamers and station griefers" group, like the M word but with pew pew? Surely there must be thousands of traders out there wanting to participate in safe, consensual, sane pvp?...

*IF* Frontier ever decided to hard split the modes (and, given DBOBE's reiteration this week that they won't be, this is extremely unlikely) then those who don't select Open will probably select Private Group as it can provide everything from Solo (personal Private Group), Private Group (as it does now) and pseudo-Open (the Private Group that you postulate). I doubt that it would take long for such a pseudo-Open Private Group to be created. The reality of this hypothetical outcome is that those who don't like group switching wouldn't be in it as they would all be locked into Open....

 

[gMcizzLe]

Was just reading the Star Citizen FAQ and how their solution is to have everyone in the same universe, like in EvE or WoW, but the instancing will be done based on skill/asset level and other preferences. Much better design.

 

[SteveLaw]

Is there really a difference between these two things?
1. Oh crap I'm being attacked by a pirate, I'll log off quick.
2. Oh crap there are pirates in this system, I'll go into Solo mode.

One is an exploit and will get a player punished, and yet the other perfectly acceptable?
That's a very fine line indeed.

3. Awesome, I can play this game without having to be subjected to PvP. Here, have my money.

- - - Updated - - -

Was just reading the Star Citizen FAQ and how their solution is to have everyone in the same universe, like in EvE or WoW, but the instancing will be done based on skill/asset level and other preferences. Much better design.

What are the "other preferences"? Would one be "I don't want to play with others"?

Ah yes.

The other key thing the Galaxy Server does is dynamically place players based on their location, skill level, alignment and player versus player (PvP) preference into battle instances.

There is also a PvP slider that will influence whether you are more likely to be matched up with hostile players or NPCs.

http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/Instancing
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...s-On-Multiplayer-Single-Player-And-Instancing


Very similar to Elite then. We all share the same universe but are placed in instances according to our preference (Open/Group/Solo).

 

[jonny taco]

Was just reading the Star Citizen FAQ and how their solution is to have everyone in the same universe, like in EvE or WoW, but the instancing will be done based on skill/asset level and other preferences. Much better design.

Any idea as to the size of their instancing? Also, are they using p2p or server side hosting? I've not really followed SC much so no idea about these specifics. If their instances are lets say 50+ people and it's all hosted server side it's multiplayer experience will be leaps and bounds above elite.

 

[Jockey79]

Was just reading the Star Citizen FAQ and how their solution is to have everyone in the same universe, like in EvE or WoW, but the instancing will be done based on skill/asset level and other preferences. Much better design.

They also have personal private servers (that will get background sim updates as well).

How do feel knowing that even in SC, people can play the game away from PKers?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Was just reading the Star Citizen FAQ and how their solution is to have everyone in the same universe, like in EvE or WoW, but the instancing will be done based on skill/asset level and other preferences. Much better design.

I thought that SC will allow private servers to be created - this rather undermines the "everyone in the same universe" statement.

Ninja'd!

 

[gMcizzLe]

3. Awesome, I can play this game without having to be subjected to PvP. Here, have my money.

- - - Updated - - -



What are the "other preferences"? Would one be "I don't want to play with others"?

Ah yes. http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/Instancing

Very similar to Elite then. We all share the same universe but are placed in instances according to our preference (Open/Group/Solo).

It's not clear what exactly that means yet though. The example the SC guy uses seems to suggest that players will be present at all times, maybe just not flagged for PvP.

 

[Derath]

You seem to be under a misapprehension. Offline mode was added later in the Kickstarter than the three game modes that we have. The three (online) game modes have existed from the outset of the Kickstarter pitch, along with the ability of players to switch modes at will. From the Kickstarter FAQ (note the date):

Solo is so tacked on, this game was built multiplayer, both groups and solo are filtering - the fact they always intended them doesn't mean they aren't tacked on, however I didn't realise they did genuinely set out to land themselves in their current situation.

 

[Kaeldian]

How do feel knowing that even in SC, people can play the game away from PKers?

Take my money! Just TAKE IT!


I've been watching this thread since I started playing months ago, and it amazes me how people just won't budge.

Myself? I'm a "battlegrounds" type of guy. I spend most of my time feeding on NPC's until I get the itch to to play against players - so I step into a "battleground" which is why Mobius is a great fit for me. But most of the time, I just don't want to deal with surprise PvP.

If they want to separate the ladders for CG's between open and closed, that's fine and dandy for me - but the existence of the various rulesets of private servers really throws a wrench into that idea as their challenges differ as well. And still certain types (read, those who would prefer to force everybody into open) would still be unhappy.

Which is probably why FD just leaves the system they have well enough alone - and they are right to do so.

Making a meaningful impact in open will be a joke as long as they are P2P anyway. If they ever go Server-Client, it would be worth visiting this discussion. But right now it's a big fat waste of time.

 

[Derath]

I thought that SC will allow private servers to be created - this rather undermines the "everyone in the same universe" statement.

Ninja'd!

Maybe there will be a group "Open" for people who want you know... to play exclusively open, oh sorry that isn't the way i was meant to play in my play anyway i wanted to

People seem to think that if we had to be seperated thats a win for the current implementation.... Like do you even... /facepalms

 

[gMcizzLe]

I thought that SC will allow private servers to be created - this rather undermines the "everyone in the same universe" statement.

Ninja'd!

And WoW has private servers too, but nobody really plays on them compared to live.