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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
TIL that Deadly Clippers can give me a nasty shock in my own A rated clipper. Made it out with 1% hull left and it was chasing me all the way firing missiles until i could get out of the mass lock of the RES.

Next person who refers to solo as easy mode (i was in open, just a remote location, but the principle is the same) get's downvoted by me. Ok... no downvotes. A whithering glare then. :p
 
TIL that Deadly Clippers can give me a nasty shock in my own A rated clipper. Made it out with 1% hull left and it was chasing me all the way firing missiles until i could get out of the mass lock of the RES.

Next person who refers to solo as easy mode (i was in open, just a remote location, but the principle is the same) get's downvoted by me. Ok... no downvotes. A whithering glare then. :p

Baddie :)
 
. I'm suggesting pay them more for the added RISK that open brings because you never know what a human is going to do.

If there's an incentive t

Here's my problem with this logic though.

Whenever I hear from someone who PvP's (ie interdicts others who usually dont WANT to be interdicted) they always put the solution to be the VICTIMS problem.

I VERy seldom hear about the agressor agreeing that there are flaws in the "Dangerous" part of being the agressor - the one who can CHOOSE his battles to ensure (most of the time) an easy victory against a weaker opponent.

The WANTED part needs to be a big part of being an agressor, pirate or criminal.

After all, how often is Elite DANGEROUS to agressors.
 
I say we DOUBLE trading income in Open.

Or -halve- it in Solo.

Either way, it'd be a GREAT incentive to play in open.
I'm all for it!

I know a couple of backwaters with reasonable traderoutes which I hung out in for a month and in that time I met 3 players who were also using that route.

Easy money open carebear mode baby yeah!
If risk isn't an issue then there's no reason to not play open.
The wise one has spoken ladies and gentlemen.

The noble open master race cannot conceive of a reason besides risk why the dirty solo peasants won't want to play with them. Surely it's not the attitude they're exhuming. Surely not :)
 
Last edited:
Click the link in the post you quoted and you will see the reason.

Here it is again:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...tra-punctuation/9967-Hating-Multiplayer-Creep

Read it. Understand the concept that human beings are not all the same and just because you find something fun that doesn't mean that others will.

I don't need someone else to tell me how to think. I have already made up my mind. :)

- - - Updated - - -

Here's my problem with this logic though.

Whenever I hear from someone who PvP's (ie interdicts others who usually dont WANT to be interdicted) they always put the solution to be the VICTIMS problem.

I VERy seldom hear about the agressor agreeing that there are flaws in the "Dangerous" part of being the agressor - the one who can CHOOSE his battles to ensure (most of the time) an easy victory against a weaker opponent.

The WANTED part needs to be a big part of being an agressor, pirate or criminal.

After all, how often is Elite DANGEROUS to agressors.

Having spent the last four months living on the edge I can assure you there are absolute ways you can avoid conflict in open and save your hide should a dangerous situation present itself without combat logging or fleeing to solo mode. The aggressor is not in control. He has the perceived illusion of being in control, but make no mistake, he is not.
 
I completely understand your proposal. The question I would like to get to is: Why? What should drive FD to kick that hornets nest just to get players to use a certain matchmaking script? The premiss that open is something to be subsidized for it's own sake is the root of the issue. I can't see why one mode should have more value than another. If everyone is happy with the choices they have made why should FD care where anyone logged onto?

One simple reason: People are the commodity of open. Folks play in open for the chance of encountering another player and unknown possibilities they present. If everyone goes to solo (which most have), there's little value in open mode to begin with.

So give folks an incentive to take that risk.

Having spent the last 30+ years playing against AI in computer games, I find humans immensely more interesting than any computer algorithm. That applies to when I'm the aggressor or the pursued. Or maybe I'm just minding my own business. The human element still makes it more interesting.

We probably have another hundred years or so before there's an AI on this world that is remotely as capable as even an average human.
 
One simple reason: People are the commodity of open. Folks play in open for the chance of encountering another player and unknown possibilities they present. If everyone goes to solo (which most have), there's little value in open mode to begin with.

So give folks an incentive to take that risk.

Having spent the last 30+ years playing against AI in computer games, I find humans immensely more interesting than any computer algorithm. That applies to when I'm the aggressor or the pursued. Or maybe I'm just minding my own business. The human element still makes it more interesting.

We probably have another hundred years or so before there's an AI on this world that is remotely as capable as even an average human.
YOU find humans immensly more interesting that AI. You'd think that you guys would be content to play other like-minded folks who also find humans immensely more interesting, but that isn't the case. Instead you guys spend all of your time trying to figure out ways to get Frontier to bribe or bully players who obviously aren't like-minded (since they ARE NOT in open).

Which brings us to the real question that no one ever seems to have an answer for: If open is so great, why do you need to bribe players to play it? Seriously, you, Vash, Slash, Gash, et al, all tout how much more engaging open play is in one post, then without any seeming awareness of the logical disconnect, want Frontier to offer incentives in the next post.

Newsflash, the vast majority of us know what open is all about. I would bet that very few of us didn't try it on for size before deciding it didn't fit. If open was really all of that and a bag of chips, then we'd already be there.
 
Having spent the last 30+ years playing against AI in computer games, I find humans immensely more interesting than any computer algorithm. That applies to when I'm the aggressor or the pursued. Or maybe I'm just minding my own business. The human element still makes it more interesting.

No one here claims that humans aren't more interesting opponents than NPCs. But there are two distinct reasons why that is so:

1. Compared to NPCs, humans draw from a vastly wider spectrum of potential strategies, tactics, decisions, are less predictable (while not just being random), and can be fully communicated with.
2. A human opponent is an actual person with actual feelings, not a lifeless algorithm.

For example a PvPer purely in the #1 camp would be a genuine pirate who steals from human players because NPCs just follow the same patterns, cannot be talked to etc.; such a pirate demands cargo from player traders and lets them go if they comply.

A PvPer purely in the #2 camp is our typical griefer, relishing on the fact that the opponent has actual (bad) feelings about their ship being destroyed.

Everyone would love for NPCs to fulfill #1, too, but this is indeed a long way off still. Lots of people who regard themselves as PvPers in the #1 camp would not care whether their opponents are human or AI if they were 100% indistinguishable from another.

But then with #2, there is a catch, it is a double-sided coin. One extreme end is the one I mentioned, the griefer. The other side of the coin is the coop player, who wants to have other players around to help each other out, do stuff together etc, where NPC companions can never* fulfill the social aspects.

And then again, of course, #1 and #2 often are mixed together. A coop player may want to have human wingmates instead of NPCs not just because there are actual people to socialize with, but also because of all the reasons from #1. A PvPer may seek the full range of human decision-making and the challenge resulting from that, as well as the knowledge that if they defeat the opponent, someone on the other end there has actual feelings about it (these are not your garden variety griefers who attack Haulers with their Vultures - no challenge in that; these players are, for example, doing competitive tournaments, relishing in victory and the defeat of their opponents as well as the challenge and sportmanship).

The reason why I am writing all this is thus: you describe yourself as belonging clearly only in the #1 camp. You find NPCs too dumb and predictable, too easy and boring. You don't need a change to the modes in ED, you already have exactly what you wish for in Open Play. What you don't get is to fight people who have no wish to do so, either in general or just not as mere victims in their little freighters (you may see them in Open Play once they feel confident enough about their fighting skills as well as their equipment). If you could force them to be in Open Play mode anyway, they would pose no challenge to you, and may possibly even be easier to defeat than a typical NPC, therefore not even satisfying the very reason you stated for wanting to fight against human players.

The way ED is set up suits exactly your type of player already, you just don't seem to realize it. (Or you are being dishonest here not to mention that you also belong into camp #2.)

(*Eventual personhood of AI and common acceptance thereof notwithstanding.)
 
Last edited:
I'm all for it!

I know a couple of backwaters with reasonable traderoutes which I hung out in for a month and in that time I met 3 players who were also using that route.

Easy money open carebear mode baby yeah!

The wise one has spoken ladies and gentlemen.

The noble open master race cannot conceive of a reason besides risk why the dirty solo peasants won't want to play with them. Surely it's not the attitude they're exhuming. Surely not :)

Surely it would be more helpful to actually list some convincing reasons?
Risk IS the only major thing I can think of, off the top of my head, that isn't available in the other modes.
 
One simple reason: People are the commodity of open. Folks play in open for the chance of encountering another player and unknown possibilities they present. If everyone goes to solo (which most have), there's little value in open mode to begin with.

So give folks an incentive to take that risk.

Having spent the last 30+ years playing against AI in computer games, I find humans immensely more interesting than any computer algorithm. That applies to when I'm the aggressor or the pursued. Or maybe I'm just minding my own business. The human element still makes it more interesting.

We probably have another hundred years or so before there's an AI on this world that is remotely as capable as even an average human.

1) I'm not a "commodity" - being treated like one is offensive to me. I am a person with freedom of choice, and I choose not to waste my in game time with someone who likens me to an object they have power over.
2) The "incentive" for open is the thrill and the risk of what other people will do to you (or not do) while you play
3) What you find interesting is a personal opinion - other people find other things interesting. I like ship building and configuring, I dislike people who think they own me.
4) The AI can beat you down so badly you give up playing - SJA does not want to do that, but she did make it clear, she can make them as hard to beat as she likes. She is trying to keep the game fun for all.

I play mainly in private groups with real friends or in Mobius, I play ED mainly to be sociable with people I know. I have used Solo and Open
I've spent my entire working life working with the public, I'd not invite them home with me then, so I'm not going to invite them in to my game time now.

When you finally understand it is players like yourself who put people off open, perhaps then you'll understand you're also the cure to open.
If you change your attitudes and make open a place people want to be, they will flood back to it - YOU ARE THE INCENTIVE.
Until then, while people are nothing more than game content for you, open will become more sparse as people leave the core systems or change modes.
 
A player can't Wing up in Solo to reduce their risk....

indeed.... open is only potentially more dangerous if you go on the assumption that all players in open want to shoot each other. Countless people tell me this is simply not the case and that the majority of CMDRs either do their own thing OR actively help each other.

imo both of these cant be true either open is more dangerous because it is full of cut throats who want to see me burn/steal my stuff OR it is mostly full of CMDRs who at best will help you by joining a wing or at worst ignore you and do their own thing.

that being said, its about time solo allowed players to wing up with AI imo.... sometimes as paid escorts and other times just because saftey in numbers and all going to the same place.
 
Last edited:
Surely it would be more helpful to actually list some convincing reasons?
Risk IS the only major thing I can think of, off the top of my head, that isn't available in the other modes.

I've linked this about 72671791624 times in this thread now. Here it is again:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...tra-punctuation/9967-Hating-Multiplayer-Creep

So....

1. People don't like social interaction with others.

2. People do like social interaction with others, but not online where they can't speak face to face.

3. People love social interaction, online or offline, but don't want it to cut into their gaming time as they prefer to play alone.

4. People enjoy playing for immersion and roleplay, and running into people who pointlessly drag you out of your game for "no reason":

scrn.jpg

utterly ruin that immersion.

5. People don't want to be responsible for someone elses gaming enjoyment by playing multiplayer.

6. People don't want their own enjoyment of a game to be in any way dependent upon other people playing.
 
I don't need someone else to tell me how to think. I have already made up my mind. :)

- - - Updated - - -



Having spent the last four months living on the edge I can assure you there are absolute ways you can avoid conflict in open and save your hide should a dangerous situation present itself without combat logging or fleeing to solo mode. The aggressor is not in control. He has the perceived illusion of being in control, but make no mistake, he is not.

So, according to you, there is no more risk in open then in solo since "you can avoid conflict", so there is no need to change anything.
 
however the game should promote online play over solo play. .
I think this is the crux of the problem.

To this I would ask WHY? MP is great and all as an option but WHY should it be promoted oover solo play? is it because solo is boring and MP is exciting? in which case no promotion needed as you get your bonus by being in open and having your MP... THAT is - or should be - promotion enough in and of itsself.

all doing that does is screw over players who either actively prefer solo OR mechanically cant use open for what ever reason - reasons already asked and answered many times.

untill however we can find a satisfactory answer to WHY MP should be actively promoted by gamey boosts etc or by forcing it - something which many want on here - then i do not see any real common ground TBH.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom