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

[Dave1235]

I've refined the idea a bit after that particular post, but no, nobody would have to avoid Leesti. Might need more care going in as there would likely be a higher than normal amount of NPC pirate traffic. How much "higher than normal" is still up for debate.

And just to be clear to everyone, I'm not saying that these spawns would somehow magically act like the players they are simulating. They're still NPCs governed by the behaviors programmed by she-who-shall-not-be-named.

As I understand it this would only affect powerplay. Standard "vanilla" players wouldn't necessarily increase the presence of "vanilla" NPCs.

And even if they did, it doesn't mean that the NPC clones would behave as their PC counterparts do. This idea wasn't about blockading a system from normal player activity, just affecting the powerplay environment.

I do think that there should be some thought in where you can and cannot go in solo mode due to a NPC presence. I am not talking blockades, but increases AI ability that a player in solo can't just take it for granted any system might get the odd interdiction. Admittedly things might have changed in the last few weeks as I got bored of trading, did a bit of RES hunting, but as soon as I got my X52 I decided on a trip to the core, so NPC interdictions might have increased. I don't think the devs have the technology to replicate the actions of individual players in any given system, but a broad brush stroke to increase NPC numbers to match the busier systems in open would be a welcome addition.

Thanks for the reply's, as long as "mafiosi" type behavior as DBOBE would call it does not leak out of open mode then I don't have much of an opinion right now, I don't have any interest in PP right now, that may change.

 

[relayer]

If there are 12 Elite player Annies lined up outside a CG station, shooting at everyone that passes by (player and NPC alike)

Just picking one sentence from your post because this idea has bugged me for some time:

Why would any player work against a CG? Not PowerPlay events; I get that. But a CG (at least the old-style) benefits all players, no matter if they are in Open, Solo, Group, bounty hunter, pirate, explorer, trader, or didn't contribute; like the recent Diso Ma Corn or the shield tech discount CGs.

Is it just sour grapes? "If I can't have the Top 1-5 slots and the big credit reward, no one will?"
It seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face...

 

[TruffleSnout]

Why would any player work against a CG?

Not a clue. If there's a CG I don't like (because... reasons), then I just don't participate. Got no need personally to try and keep others from participating.

However, for a segment of players, they do want to be... contrary? I guess? At least Code had a nice Role Playing reason for opposing Diso Ma Corn that I thought was creative.

In any case, I do see that blockading an activity (as opposed to blockading a location) might be a nice thing to try and get NPCs enrolled into for no other reason than variety's sake.

 

[Anson22]

I play in open all the time but I haven't decided to take part in power play yet - I prefer my freebooter status. I think that there should be the same level of NPC's whether you play solo or open. In most systems the number of human players is negligable anyway. I've not experienced any 'mafioso' behaviour personally (from NPC's or Humans) although I have found that trying to contact other Human players usually illicits no response or them leaving the system - issues with the communications functionality, fear of griefers, or my BO? - I don't know ;-) One guy contacted me though and we had a great chat, which is what Open should be about. I think the right to play Solo has to be defended - Elite back in 1984 was always about being alone out there - it's just that today you can be alone out there in Open mode too!

 

[relayer]

1. The discrepancy in impact between open, group and solo modes.

I addressed this point in my multiquote post a few days back. I keep hearing "Open is barren!" "Open is a wasteland!" & etc.

If this is true, there's no more resistance to working PowerPlay activities in Open than in Solo.

Unless, of course, you do not want to play PP by the rules laid down (activities; reinforcing, expanding, undermining, etc) but are determined to use another method exclusively that is not really a main part of the PP structure (direct PvP).

 

[Daffan]

solo is way to OP in efficiency. Makes you play it to keep on equal footing.

rip in pepperoni

 

[Mouse]

I tentatively suggested something very similar a few days ago in this thread and it was shot down in flames..
It's kinda odd how people now seem to think it might be a reasonable idea.

Unless I am completely misunderstanding what is being suggested, of course.

I don't remember you making the suggestion similar to his, but for the reaction you mention it also could be how in you said it.

If there was a setting to Real-Life® where you could only be interrupted in your game when it was safe to log off, there would be no need for this discussion

I was talking about the "combat log" issue people are talking about and a way to fix it. my idea was if you were in a station or in a system alone you'd insta log but if there were other ships around (Npc or human) you would drift a bit.

 

[relayer]

A common thread runs through many of the Open-Only or Open-Affects-Solo posts:

1. If Open affected Solo like is being proposed now, it would be the same thing (but flipped) as "Solo players are disproportionally affecting Open!"

2. I don't "duck into Solo" to avoid anything. I play in Solo. That's it. I also don't do PowerPlay. Solo is my chosen mode. I'm sorry if Open players feel I am somehow "cheating" - I bought this game specifically because I was told I could play in Solo. The problem being put forth by these "Open Is Moar Fare" is not a mode problem; it's a player problem. Penalizing everyone in solo for the actions of a few players is the same as Open-only advocates saying they don't have it fair because of Solo.

3. The last main point is that I see "blockades" coming up over and over as an argument to justify "open is unfair compared to solo."

FD didn't put in mechanisms for this to work. My guess is that they wanted to avoid the "system ownership" problem that plagued EvE (and other games). This "we can't blockade systems" argument is the fine point of a wedge leading to permanently-blocked systems.

FD has stated that there will be no "ownership" of any systems in this game. I think it's a brilliant solution.

 

[TruffleSnout]

1. If Open affected Solo like is being proposed now, it would be the same thing (but flipped) as "Solo players are disproportionally affecting Open!"

My particular proposal (don't know if that's the one you're talking about here) isn't about Open affecting Solo. It's mode agnostic. If there's a 10% increase in players in a system (regardless of mode) there should be a 10% increase in NPC spawns (regardless of mode). This is an over simplification, and the 10% number is just for illustration, but this is the gist of my particular idea.

Your other points I agree with.

 

[relayer]

Would your suggestion work outside of CG's? lets look at Leesti for example, are people going to have to avoid it in solo and groups too, because the AI there replicate the players who decided to take over there in open?

I always think of this example, having experienced it myself. "This is our system/those are our profits."

Yeah, right. If you aren't trading, those profits aren't yours.

 

[relayer]

I think the right to play Solo has to be defended - Elite back in 1984 was always about being alone out there - it's just that today you can be alone out there in Open mode too!

+1 rep for cogent argument.

 

[relayer]

My particular proposal (don't know if that's the one you're talking about here) isn't about Open affecting Solo. It's mode agnostic. If there's a 10% increase in players in a system (regardless of mode) there should be a 10% increase in NPC spawns (regardless of mode). This is an over simplification, and the 10% number is just for illustration, but this is the gist of my particular idea.

I do agree with your proposal; it would have to be thought out or "thought-gamed" to shake out inconsistencies, problems, bugs and etc.


Whenever I bring up Freelancer, things go quiet - did people not like that game at all? Am I committing a faux pas?
In that game, there was a huge active presence outside stations, with NPCs doing a variety of actions. Add all the "radio chatter" and NPC trade ships, bandits and whatever and that game galaxy seemed a whole lot busier and actually inhabited, even with only NPCs. Same thing in Freespace2.

Yes to more traffic, but thought out & reasoned beforehand.

 

[Roland2]

My particular proposal (don't know if that's the one you're talking about here) isn't about Open affecting Solo. It's mode agnostic. If there's a 10% increase in players in a system (regardless of mode) there should be a 10% increase in NPC spawns (regardless of mode). This is an over simplification, and the 10% number is just for illustration, but this is the gist of my particular idea.

Your other points I agree with.

See, I would think it would be just the opposite. Why do we need more NPCs in a system just because a group of players want to be there. The players are taking care of things (or nothing), so the NPCs don't need to be there to take care of things (or nothing).
People who favor open are always complaining about solo/group players affecting open, now you are proposing open players affect group and solo.
I just don't see how this helps anything. We already have players complaining about too many NPC interdictions, not enough NPC interdictions, etc, etc. What "problem" does this solve? Someones idea of not enough NPCs? From what I understand, the number of NPCs in a system is already controlled by RNG, adding another one doesn't make sense to me.

 

[TruffleSnout]

Whenever I bring up Freelancer, things go quiet - did people not like that game at all? Am I committing a faux pas?
In that game, there was a huge active presence outside stations, with NPCs doing a variety of actions. Add all the "radio chatter" and NPC trade ships, bandits and whatever and that game galaxy seemed a whole lot busier and actually inhabited, even with only NPCs. Same thing in Freespace2.

I played the biowaste out of Freespace 2, but to be honest, I don't recall details like how NPC spawns were being handled, so I can't really comment on it from that perspective, that's the only reason I don't comment on that kind of thing more. Maybe others are the same? We're an older bunch us 40 and 50 somethings. Memory's the first thing to


What was I doing?

 

[Jockey79]

I do agree with your proposal; it would have to be thought out or "thought-gamed" to shake out inconsistencies, problems, bugs and etc.


Whenever I bring up Freelancer, things go quiet - did people not like that game at all? Am I committing a faux pas?
In that game, there was a huge active presence outside stations, with NPCs doing a variety of actions. Add all the "radio chatter" and NPC trade ships, bandits and whatever and that game galaxy seemed a whole lot busier and actually inhabited, even with only NPCs. Same thing in Freespace2.

Yes to more traffic, but thought out & reasoned beforehand.

I still have Freelancer installed
Though, not really bothered with it since I have ED to play.

I've lost a lot of hours space trucking in that game, in turret mode shooting at pirates and bandits.
I even managed in one save, to get all factions either neutral or green. I could dock anywhere, buy anything - it was epic!!!

In part, it is why I bought ED. My friends words were "updated Freelancer" ~ I was hooked, there and then. Plus the week with his Beta account working up to a T6 - bought ED Nov 6 2014.

And I had so much fun, without anyone on these forums being part of it

 

[Faded Glory]

Wanted to discuss this one separate from my previous post.

Obviously I wouldn't know without access to source code. However, when I drop into System A and see half dozen NPCs in SC, then drop into a station and see another half dozen NPCs, and I look at the traffic report (which presumably sorta-shows Player traffic) I see 2 Asps, and I'm one of them. Then I get to System B. Again I see 6 NPCs in SC and 6 at a station. I look at that traffic report and I see 500 Sidewinders, 300 Eagles, 35 Asps, 6 Pythons and a T9. At that point I have to ask myself, why wasn't the NPC traffic any higher in this system than it was in System A? That has been my observation. The only systems I see with regularly higher levels of NPC traffic are the ones that have higher numbers of stations.

Setting aside the modes altogether - if there is a 200% increase in Player traffic in a system (regardless of mode they were in), then I'd like to see a 200% increase in NPC traffic (for ALL modes - not just solo).

Well, I don't think that looking at the traffic report gives that accurate a picture of how many players are in Open, or indeed, the number of players in any mode at a specific time, as it is compiled over a 24 hour period.

Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly disagree with your proposal, as it would for one thing remove yet another 'argument' about the fairness of modes. What I am questioning is whether FD aren't already doing this. As I said, since every mission creates a 'personalized' NPC environment for all players, my guess is that this may already happen to a degree.

The problem that still exists is how this is balanced, as it could become very complex. For example, FD see a system with a number of ranked CMDRs, so they try to balance that by inserting an appropriate number of equivalent ranked NPCs. First of all, what's an appropriate number, based on instancing / likelihood of actually meeting any or all of those CMDRs if you were in Open, and then how appropriate is the ranking? Without wishing to cause offense, ranking up in combat skills for a CMDR is as much to do with persistence as it is to do with skill, and yet NPCs will be given a skill set determined by SJA based upon what she thinks a particular rank level should have. There are lots of variables there, and in the end FD could end up overcompensating and making the game that much more difficult for every mode (NPCs are in open too).

Some people I am sure want this game to be much more difficult, but I question whether that is the majority of the player base. I for one play it for fun.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

I addressed this point in my multiquote post a few days back. I keep hearing "Open is barren!" "Open is a wasteland!" & etc.

If this is true, there's no more resistance to working PowerPlay activities in Open than in Solo.

Unless, of course, you do not want to play PP by the rules laid down (activities; reinforcing, expanding, undermining, etc) but are determined to use another method exclusively that is not really a main part of the PP structure (direct PvP).

Would that not suggest that open is worse than solo if open was a barren wasteland?

No matter how dead open is, there will always be places you can go where you are guaranteed to meet players. Rare routes, power home bases, expansions, and CG's.

 

[relayer]

I still have Freelancer installed
Though, not really bothered with it since I have ED to play.

I've lost a lot of hours space trucking in that game, in turret mode shooting at pirates and bandits.
I even managed in one save, to get all factions either neutral or green. I could dock anywhere, buy anything - it was epic!!!

In part, it is why I bought ED. My friends words were "updated Freelancer" ~ I was hooked, there and then. Plus the week with his Beta account working up to a T6 - bought ED Nov 6 2014.

And I had so much fun, without anyone on these forums being part of it

I still have it installed also. First thing I thought when I saw ED's "witchspace" was "wow this (graphic) is so similar to Freelancer" (and not in a bad way)

Getting all the myriad factions to green or neutral was a really difficult "self-created goal" and took a lot of thinking & understanding the faction mechanics.

I must bring up teh eliteness - you hadn't really mastered Freelancer until you could do the whole SP campaign in a Rhino or Hunchback

 

[TruffleSnout]

See, I would think it would be just the opposite. Why do we need more NPCs in a system just because a group of players want to be there. The players are taking care of things (or nothing), so the NPCs don't need to be there to take care of things (or nothing).
People who favor open are always complaining about solo/group players affecting open, now you are proposing open players affect group and solo.
I just don't see how this helps anything. We already have players complaining about too many NPC interdictions, not enough NPC interdictions, etc, etc. What "problem" does this solve? Someones idea of not enough NPCs? From what I understand, the number of NPCs in a system is already controlled by RNG, adding another one doesn't make sense to me.

The issues that this mechanic would (at least in some small way) affect are:

• Giving Pirates (in all modes) NPCs with better cargo, reducing their desire to force solo players into open (since, from their point of view, players are the only ones carrying cargo worth pirating).
• Giving Open players a feeling that their presence in a system is in fact having an affect on Solo players, balancing that against their impressions that Solo affects Open. This would be particularly felt in Power Play to a greater extent than in other aspects of the game.
• Giving Solo players a better sense of being part of the goings-on in the Galaxy. "Current hot spots" will be more apparent.

As a solo-only player that last point is an important one for me personally. The pure RNG spawns you mention have one crucial limitation: they don't take into account things like CGs, Galnet posts, or other spontaneous player-driven events (like the demolition derby). CG (as an example) systems look like any other system. When I show up to a CG system in Solo, I want to see more NPCs to get a sense that there is something going on there.

 

[relayer]

Well, I don't think that looking at the traffic report gives that accurate a picture of how many players are in Open, or indeed, the number of players in any mode at a specific time, as it is compiled over a 24 hour period.

Do people know that the traffic report is not "one number = 1 player" but "how many ships have passed through" includes repeat visits by the same ships (trade running, just passing through, etc)? I've been in some trading runs in obscure places and seen that "75 Asps have passed through" when it has been only me, grinding a trade route.