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

[Jockey79]

Well maybe it's the assumption that somebody is trying to "force open mode on everyone" that is the problem.
Some people react to simple questions I ask as if that is what I said, when I have never said any such thing.

No one is asking for forced solo mode on everyone or forced group play on everyone.
The only place suggestions for locking the modes out from each other has come from is open advocates.

I've made no such assumptions that people are trying to force open - I've actually seen them say it.
Read this thread from the start, read the last one from the start. The suggestion gets brought up quite regularly.

I repost my wall of information each time it happens, I've lost count over how many times I've reposted it - and I've been quoted on it several times.

 

[CMDR Malkov]

No assumption - that attitude has been quite common in this thread (unfortunately).

I confess that I haven't read the whole thread.
I realize there are some people who want to force open on others but tbh I haven't seen that much of it here.

Where do you actually stand, Malkov?

I fully support the solo and group modes as options. I have never played in group but have probably spent the majority of my game time in solo.
I fully support open and recognize the frustrations that many players have with it.

I frown on those who use the choice to switch modes simply as a means to gain a competitive advantage.
I frown on those who treat logging out as a valid tactic in combat as if it were akin to firing off some chaff or a SCB.
I frown on those who feel a game context means they need have no consideration for others.

If there are any other specific issues you would like me to give my personal stand on please feel free to ask.

What are you trying to achieve here?

A future for ED that:

- Is long-lived
- Is meaningful and engaging, regardless of your play style
- Is inclusive
- Dis-encourages cheaters, exploiters and griefers

I personally think that Open has a big part to play.
It is currently one of the most problematic areas with lots of criticism, frustration and dis-satisfaction from many sides.
It's arguably the area of the game where people feel most that they are not getting what they wanted but the issues are not easily resolved.

What I am trying to achieve here is just to discuss some of the different ideas and points of view in a reasonable way.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I personally think that Open has a big part to play.
It is currently one of the most problematic areas with lots of criticism, frustration and dis-satisfaction from many sides.
It's arguably the area of the game where people feel most that they are not getting what they wanted but the issues are not easily resolved.

Of course Open has a big part to play - it is the only mode where we meet random strangers.

While there may be criticism, frustration and dis-satisfaction, it should be borne in mind that some of these are offered / experienced by players who do not share Frontier's stance on the three modes:

According to some members of the community, Solo players should have a limited or no effect on Powerplay - or, alternatively, playing in Open should offer Powerplay bonuses. Is this something you are considering?

No. For us Solo, Groups and Open are all valid and equal ways to play the game.

Yes, Zac's quote relates to Powerplay specifically but it mirrors the opinion of DBOBE that there is no "right" way to play the game.

If what some people want is to force others to play the game the way that they themselves want to play then I would expect that those people are going to be out of luck - Frontier have encouraged us all to "play the game how you want to" - this does not require any of us to be content for others (unless we choose to be, of course).

 

[Tuub t Tute]

As a habitual mode-switcher, one thing which would make Open significantly more appealing to me would be the suspension of the insurance system for deaths caused by other players.

Sure I might lose my cargo (cargo insurance is another topic). If me "having" to be in Open was softened by me knowing that I didn't run the risk of losing millions of cr in rebuy, plus the combatant knowing that they were not going to inflict that loss on me, I would feel more inclined to spend more of my time in Open.

As it is, I tend to fly a combat ship in Open, to minimise my losses.

 

[ever]

Add rewards for Open Play

Since the game is meant to be played by many players, please add some rewards for playing only in the open. Like decals, ship skins, or whatever you think fit.

 

[TruffleSnout]

We all have to realize as well that FD has access to numbers and measures that we don't.

They may look at their logs and see that 1% of the player base is playing in Open. So if "open dies" then they're only going to lose 1% of the player base - not a good ROI on making architectural changes to the game.

Conversely they may look at the logs and see that 98% of the player base plays in Open. That would be suggestive of the idea that there really isn't a problem with Open, since everyone is already there.

So, really the whole idea that something must be done to "save open" is based off the preconceived notion that there is A) Something wrong with Open and B) Something worth saving in Open. Neither of which we have enough data to draw a conclusion about.

Also, for my Radical Solution Of The Day:
Let's get rid of both Open and Solo. Make Groups the only thing remaining. If you want a PvP Group, create one. If you want a PvE group, create one. If you want a group of Just You, create one.

That would at least have the benefit of changing the argument so we'd not have to deal with the whole Open Vs Solo thing any more.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Also, for my Radical Solution Of The Day:
Let's get rid of both Open and Solo. Make Groups the only thing remaining. If you want a PvP Group, create one. If you want a PvE group, create one. If you want a group of Just You, create one.

That would at least have the benefit of changing the argument so we'd not have to deal with the whole Open Vs Solo thing any more.

You could argue that we have this already.

Open is a group that anyone can join right away.

Solo is a group just for yourself.

 

[ianw]

Can't see the argument ever going away.

To me it's fine as it is and FD have confirmed that's how it's staying at every opportunity they've spoken directly about it.

Essentially PVP and player interaction is almost entirely voluntary - even if you spend most of your time in open as I do.

Sometimes you'll find like minded people sometimes you won't.

CQC should offer something for the ultra competitive types as well as those like me who would just like to dip into it now and again.

 

[gary.brain]

ignore.....

 

[TruffleSnout]

You could argue that we have this already.

Open is a group that anyone can join right away.

Solo is a group just for yourself.

Shush, you.

Without the menu options, the Open vs. Solo argument would completely and utterly disappear and the ED world would be Unicrons and Rainblobs.

 

[Cody]

Also, for my Radical Solution Of The Day:

<chortles> My radical solution of the day: leave it to FD (as the current model is what they want/intended), and simply close this thread!


Disclaimer: I have many problems with FD/ED, so I am in no way a [hated word].

 

[Mr_Blastman]

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.)

Truth be told I was an honest pirate that never killed to kill for months. I robbed and scrapped by letting traders go all the time if they paid up. Those that didn't... died. That's fair. I even talked first, shot later.

But since trading has died off in open (which boggles my mind since the Wings update gave traders a way to defend themselves!), I've taken up killing for sport. I have a few rules:

1. I will not kill sidewinders.
2. I will not kill traders.
3. I will not kill the same player more than once a day.
4. I will not kill them if they are unarmed.
5. Bounty Hunters are immediate kill on sight.

Everything else is fair game. If it has guns... and can fight back, I initiate PvP contact. There's nothing wrong with this per the rules of the game. I generally start off each encounter with a conversation and will sometimes let them go. It has lead to some very interesting encounters.

But I'd much rather pirate. I like pulling off a heist without ever firing a shot. That is challenging. I like dodging bounty hunters and mobs sent to defend a system. That's enjoyable. I'm just adapting with what open throws at me. And humans are more interesting to me than any AI will ever be.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Which is wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is absolutely, objectively, and provably 100% wrong.

Didn't they ever teach you in school the danger of making absolute statements?

For instance, you said this later...

Yes - social interaction. The very thing that makes the introvert avoid open is the very thing that draws the extrovert to open.

Well, I have news for you... I'm an introvert! I would be happy living in a cabin in the woods on top of a mountain, miles and miles away from people. Sometimes I'll spend all week in my house, alone, avoiding other humans and I certainly loathe crowded public places or events.

But I like playing in open. I don't like chatting with the people. Talk is cheap in the game--but I'll do it briefly at times. Instead, I like what their brains come up with, trying to figure them out and reacting to survive.

 

[ianw]

Truth be told I was an honest pirate that never killed to kill for months. I robbed and scrapped by letting traders go all the time if they paid up. Those that didn't... died. That's fair. I even talked first, shot later.

But since trading has died off in open (which boggles my mind since the Wings update gave traders a way to defend themselves!), I've taken up killing for sport. I have a few rules:

1. I will not kill sidewinders.
2. I will not kill traders.
3. I will not kill the same player more than once a day.
4. I will not kill them if they are unarmed.
5. Bounty Hunters are immediate kill on sight.

Everything else is fair game. If it has guns... and can fight back, I initiate PvP contact. There's nothing wrong with this per the rules of the game. I generally start off each encounter with a conversation and will sometimes let them go. It has lead to some very interesting encounters.

But I'd much rather pirate. I like pulling off a heist without ever firing a shot. That is challenging. I like dodging bounty hunters and mobs sent to defend a system. That's enjoyable. I'm just adapting with what open throws at me. And humans are more interesting to me than any AI will ever be.

Out of curiosity what marks someone out as a bounty hunter rather than a pirate to you?

 

[FuzzySpider]

Didn't they ever teach you in school the danger of making absolute statements?

Statements such as:

If risk isn't an issue then there's no reason to not play open.

 

[TruffleSnout]

Out of curiosity what marks someone out as a bounty hunter rather than a pirate to you?

Subsystem list. Cargo scanner == pirate, KWS == bounty hunter

Would be my guess. Does KWS show up on the system list?

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Have you been following the posts of Miss SJA?

Yup. And I'm not worried. But I look forward to what she can come up with and appreciate all her hard work.

Human brains are theoretically capable of a state of superposition. Women are particularly talented with this for whatever reason. Who knows, but they're good at it! The mechanisms of how superposition in our brains is facilitated are not understood yet.

Binary computers are not capable of superposition. It is practically impossible for them to think like a human without having orders of magnitude greater computing power than a single human brain. The reason is how superposition works. For a computer to handle superposition properly, it would need to be a quantum computer, possess sufficient qubits and a quantum algorithm to direct it.

We're a long way away from any of that.

- - - Updated - - -

Statements such as:

I'm not the one who made the original statement. You did. Nice try. You proved yourself wrong within a few pages of posts.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Since the game is meant to be played by many players, please add some rewards for playing only in the open. Like decals, ship skins, or whatever you think fit.

Its not about rewards - its incomplete features.

-peer-to-peer multiplayer means no one can be sure the other party is not cheating.

-instancing and grouping is bugged

-no proper balance in regards to being a criminal so its a shooting gallery for agressors with no consequences to unlawful actions within a non anarchy system.

So why should i risk mine or others ships and fun when the gameplay is broken?

EDIT: And when i supported the kickstarter it was single player and no DRM so dont give me the "meant to be played" speech.

 

[ianw]

Subsystem list. Cargo scanner == pirate, KWS == bounty hunter

Would be my guess. Does KWS show up on the system list?

Of course - haven't done much of either..

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Out of curiosity what marks someone out as a bounty hunter rather than a pirate to you?

My criteria:

1. They have a Kill Warrant Scanner
2. They have a FSD Interdictor
3. They do -not- have a cargo scanner
4. They do -not- have a hatchbreaker limpet controller

I always check out what they are carrying before I interdict them to narrow my focus.

I particularly enjoy doing this in weaker ships and try to avoid using stuff like a Vulture or better (I don't actually own anything bigger like a Clipper/Python etc., anyways). It's for sport and for fun. Money has never been my goal in Elite. It doesn't bother me that I may never get an Anaconda.