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

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

.... it's Frontier that have "forced" this play-style on every player who participates in Powerplay and Community Goals, not the individual players who are playing the game as designed.

And it's FDs responsibility to add game mechanics to the game that allows PvP oriented Open Mode players to enjoy the game the way they want it while not making the game unenjoyable for those who aren't PvP oriented.

Since repeating the same thing again and again is part of this thread:
I think FD needs to seriously think about PvP and improve the game significantly in that aspect. In my opinion FD makes a PvE game and thinks all that's needed to get a PvP game is to allow players to attack other players. I don' think that's enough to get a good PvP game or a game that balances PvP and PvE in a way that is enjoyable for everybody.
PowerPlay and Community Goals are a good example (especially the CG fiasco in Lugh) of things shouldn't be done in a PvE and PvP game. Not to mention the not really good PvP combat system.

 

[SteveLaw]

(especially the CG fiasco in Lugh)

Lugh is used again and again as example of how the game is broken, presumably that's because there has never been a CG that follows the same format as Lugh since to use a more recent example. They've fixed that problem (whatever it was) by not repeating it so let's move on, it's not relevant any more.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Stop forcing your play style on me ( Irony )

He forced you to buy a game with mode switching? Now, that's just not done.

Apologize to the man Ianw!

 

[ianw]

He forced you to buy a game with mode switching? Now, that's just not done.

Apologize to the man Ianw!

Well to be honest I took the (Irony) tag as a "but not really" clause.

But perhaps I underestimated my powerzzz!

So - for the benefit of any anti mode switchers who haven't yet bought...

This is not the game you seek..

View attachment 49325

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Lugh is used again and again as example of how the game is broken, presumably that's because there has never been a CG that follows the same format as Lugh since to use a more recent example. They've fixed that problem (whatever it was) by not repeating it so let's move on, it's not relevant any more.

I used it as an example of how FD doesn't understand PvP. FD fixing the problem by simply not repeating (assuming that's what they did) doesn't mean that they understood the core problem. It might not look like a big difference, but in my opinion it is. The approach to the Lugh CG from FD shows, in my opinion, that FD doesn't think like PvP players and that creates a lot of problems not only for the PvP player but for the PvE players too. It creates more problems for the PvE players in my opinion.
Maybe they learned form that CG and hopefully they learned more than just "let's not do that again".

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I used it as an example of how FD doesn't understand PvP.

Ok, just run it by us again, because i'm not quite catching on how FD don't understand PvP - maybe i'm just being thick. I haven't had much PvP, but had the occasional bit here and there, it was good fun.

But if you are making a blanket statement that FD do not understand PvP, and you like PvP, then i guess you might as well stop playing. I don't think forum arguments will cause FD to replace its top people to cater to better PvP.

 

[SteveLaw]

I used it as an example of how FD doesn't understand PvP. FD fixing the problem by simply not repeating (assuming that's what they did) doesn't mean that they understood the core problem. It might not look like a big difference, but in my opinion it is. The approach to the Lugh CG from FD shows, in my opinion, that FD doesn't think like PvP players and that creates a lot of problems not only for the PvP player but for the PvE players too. It creates more problems for the PvE players in my opinion.
Maybe they learned form that CG and hopefully they learned more than just "let's not do that again".

I suspect they more underestimated how much some players see ED as a PvP game.

ED is a poorly designed PvP game for several reasons, you'll know them better than me. There are two ways of looking at that.

1) FDev don't understand PvP.
2) ED isn't designed as a PvP game.

Various comments from FDev (e.g. PvP will be "rare and meaningful") suggest that it's mostly 2). Even if 1) is also true, it doesn't matter if they understand something that they aren't designing for.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And it's FDs responsibility to add game mechanics to the game that allows PvP oriented Open Mode players to enjoy the game the way they want it while not making the game unenjoyable for those who aren't PvP oriented.

Since repeating the same thing again and again is part of this thread:
I think FD needs to seriously think about PvP and improve the game significantly in that aspect. In my opinion FD makes a PvE game and thinks all that's needed to get a PvP game is to allow players to attack other players. I don' think that's enough to get a good PvP game or a game that balances PvP and PvE in a way that is enjoyable for everybody.
PowerPlay and Community Goals are a good example (especially the CG fiasco in Lugh) of things shouldn't be done in a PvE and PvP game. Not to mention the not really good PvP combat system.

If Frontier want the game to be more PvP oriented they may make changes - there is no "responsibility" as such to do so as we all, presumably, bought the game based on the information available - I don't remember seeing anything in the official game advertising that infers that any player role / action requires to be carried out directly against other players.

Actually - the upcoming CQC is totally PvP oriented - that may be Frontier's response to the requests for guaranteed PvP.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Ok, just run it by us again, because i'm not quite catching on how FD don't understand PvP - maybe i'm just being thick. I haven't had much PvP, but had the occasional bit here and there, it was good fun.

But if you are making a blanket statement that FD do not understand PvP, and you like PvP, then i guess you might as well stop playing. I don't think forum arguments will cause FD to replace its top people to cater to better PvP.

I like ED as an PvE game, better PvP would be just a nice addition I think that making the PvP part better and more balanced would result in a better PvE game. Keep the PvP players entertained and they might not care about the PvE players. Making PvP combat more balanced so that PvE players in Open have better chances at combat with more options than just running away might result in more players willing to play Open Mode.

I hope nobody gets replaced at FD just because my opinion and I didn't demand or expect that somebody gets replaced.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

I suspect they more underestimated how much some players see ED as a PvP game.

ED is a poorly designed PvP game for several reasons, you'll know them better than me. There are two ways of looking at that.

1) FDev don't understand PvP.
2) ED isn't designed as a PvP game.

Various comments from FDev (e.g. PvP will be "rare and meaningful") suggest that it's mostly 2). Even if 1) is also true, it doesn't matter if they understand something that they aren't designing for.

Underestimating PvP players is part of not understanding PvP Give PvP player an option to PvP and they will use it and they will find every single little advantage and way to win.
Not understanding PvP and designing a game that isn't designed as a PvP game while allowing PvP is the same thing.

ED is a cool PvE game with good PvE balance in game play and PvE combat. But PvE game play and combat doesn't work that good in a PvP situation and Open mode allows PvP. The result is a game that is PvE balanced and optimized while many players in Open consider it a PvP game - PvP is allowed and encouraged after all. At the same time the whole game play is optimized at PvE. The result is that PvP players and PvE players are frustrated. Solo/Group mode is a solution for PvE players (I like that option), but it certainly isn't a solution for PvP players. If FD wants PvP players and PvE players to be able to play the game, then FD needs to adjust the PvP part - not necessarily by making it more PvP centric or making PvP dominant.
If FD wants to create a game with only a few occasions of PvP (meaningful and rare) then they need to understand PvP to prevent it from becoming dominant. It's not enough to know how make a good PvE game.

 

[QziQza]

Seems like Power Play was made for Open Play, so why allow players to hop in Solo and undermine, prep, and expand without any way of countering or protecting your systems. There's plenty of stuff to do in solo without PP anyway. If you're pledged to a Power, and go into solo, you would remain pledged, but unable to participate in any of the Power Play gameplay, and any actions normally adding to Power Play statistics would be unaffected by your actions. Merits couldn't be earned, but hostile NPCs would remain in hostile systems, and Power Play perks would still be in effect.

Makes more sense to me this way anyway, hope I'm not the only one.

hi welcome to the thread.. in answer to this question..

there are players in this game who will get involved in PP, and those who wont.

those that want to get involved in PP, will choose their Power based on a number of considerations, reward, principles, faction, location etc.

with each players choice made, they will pledge to their power, and start work immediately.

exactly where in any of that does game mode come into it? mode of play and choice of power are not related, so while there will be solo payers acting against open players goals, there will also be solo players working towards open players goals.

the system works as-is because the distribution of support for any CG or PP is proportional throughout all modes.

we could actually take this further.. as all current mechanics for PP are based on PVE actions, if anything, should it not be the open players that loose access to PP? but that is totally uncalled for.. and funnily is is only open players that seem to push for it to be separated, what does that say i wonder..?

 

[FuzzySpider]

And it's FDs responsibility to add game mechanics to the game that allows PvP oriented Open Mode players to enjoy the game the way they want it while not making the game unenjoyable for those who aren't PvP oriented.

Yes...

...perhaps they could add an arena type game mode for those who enjoy PvP? Add it as a separate entity, so that those who want to embark on ship-to-ship destruction and naught else can enjoy the game, free from PvE players and insurance costs, giving both parties space from each other?

They could call it something like "Near-Fourths-Fighting" or something like that...

 

[SteveLaw]

Underestimating PvP players is part of not understanding PvP

I suppose, vaguely, generally...

 

[QziQza]

Btw, i can understand what soloplayers's want.. safe mode with possibility to go open at any time. Nothing more, im sure) You don't want a good single player game, deep story, interesting plot. You only want to be able to hide, from personal responsibility for example. Knew a pirate, he killed traders in open, but when he goin trade, it was solo.

no, you really don't understand.. any more than understand why i prefer cotton to wool, or rock music to clasical, or painting in oils rather than watercolours.

 

[Cody]

[stuff]

More playground taunts! Pathetic!

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Yes...

...perhaps they could add an arena type game mode for those who enjoy PvP? Add it as a separate entity, so that those who want to embark on ship-to-ship destruction and naught else can enjoy the game, free from PvE players and insurance costs, giving both parties space from each other?

They could call it something like "Near-Fourths-Fighting" or something like that...

While not exactly what I was thinking this would be a great addition. They could make the Condor as a playable ship just for the NFF part. That would be cool. Then DB could say something about how cool that would be and that it will allow explorers to have some fun in addition to the fun they have scanning icy planets

 

[QziQza]

He forced you to buy a game with mode switching? Now, that's just not done.

Apologize to the man Ianw!

IOU +Rep

 

[FuzzySpider]

Btw, i can understand what soloplayers's want.. safe mode with possibility to go open at any time. Nothing more, im sure) You don't want a good single player game, deep story, interesting plot. You only want to be able to hide, from personal responsibility for example. Knew a pirate, he killed traders in open, but when he goin trade, it was solo.

A very important skill, when interacting with other people, is the ability to see their point of view. Or at least to pretend to see their point of view. Making sweeping statements about those who, for whatever reason, appear to do things differently to you is a sure way to provoke and annoy them. Such provocations are a large part of the reason many people avoid interacting with strangers when playing video games as they play for enjoyment not annoyance.

Just something you to think about.

 

[SteveLaw]

While not exactly what I was thinking this would be a great addition. They could make the Condor as a playable ship just for the NFF part. That would be cool. Then DB could say something about how cool that would be and that it will allow explorers to have some fun in addition to the fun they have scanning icy planets

I'm not sure the explorers comment is such a good idea. I can see some negative fall out on that one. Tell him not to say that.

 

[Riktar]

Underestimating PvP players is part of not understanding PvP Give PvP player an option to PvP and they will use it and they will find every single little advantage and way to win.
Not understanding PvP and designing a game that isn't designed as a PvP game while allowing PvP is the same thing.

ED is a cool PvE game with good PvE balance in game play and PvE combat. But PvE game play and combat doesn't work that good in a PvP situation and Open mode allows PvP. The result is a game that is PvE balanced and optimized while many players in Open consider it a PvP game - PvP is allowed and encouraged after all. At the same time the whole game play is optimized at PvE. The result is that PvP players and PvE players are frustrated. Solo/Group mode is a solution for PvE players (I like that option), but it certainly isn't a solution for PvP players. If FD wants PvP players and PvE players to be able to play the game, then FD needs to adjust the PvP part - not necessarily by making it more PvP centric or making PvP dominant.
If FD wants to create a game with only a few occasions of PvP (meaningful and rare) then they need to understand PvP to prevent it from becoming dominant. It's not enough to know how make a good PvE game.

Their is PvP that is defined as a warrior looking to battle an (hollow icon) opponent. And their is PvP that is defined as attacking anything that is a hollow icon on the radar.

Both get confused with being the same as the other so bear with my breakdown:

A warrior will seek out an opponent and challenge them. Simple right? Find a hollow icon worthy of a fight, issue a statement that they are about to be attacked and let the games begin. Or, enter a conflict zone and choose a side. Anything that is red is fair game. And once again, let the games begin.

A coward will seek out any hollow icon that can easily be defeated and attack without provocation. The "battle" seldom lasts longer than a few seconds. Conflict zones with strong opponents are seldom sought out as their is no opportunity to "sucker punch" anyone.

I play in Mobius. If I want to engage in PvP while in the group, all I need to do is seek out a conflict zone that has a bunch of hollow icons and pick the opposing side. Pretty simple.

Of course their will be those who complain that it's too hard to find a conflict zone and it's easier to just find a "target rich" environment. IE: Starter systems full of weaker ships or trade routes that are full of greedy traders that run without shields or weapons.

So in a nutshell: Understanding PvP is more about clarifying how PvP is viewed by people engaging in it:

Those who wish honest battle, and those who wish to play "The knockout game".

Well, that's how I see it.

Fly well Cmdrs.