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

[Robert Maynard]

yes, but apaaaaart from aaaaaaaaaaall of dat, wots yah point?

My point - I don't have a point - I require a pointed hat to allow me to go out in public and a dog called Arrow to be able to play triangle-toss....

 

[Phosphora]

I like the current design. It embraces the fact that people differ.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Scudmungus]

My point - I don't have a point - I require a pointed hat to allow me to go out in public and a dog called Arrow to be able to play triangle-toss....

Ha! Mi be knowin a man wid a dog dat can sort yuh out...

..also remindin me of a joke about bout a mathematician but cant say here. Sure yuh work it out!

actualt OT fah once: agreed. Frontier makin dere intentions clear way way back. Forum place for opinion swappin an sharin but really, nottin more. Hopin wi can aal remember dat wi choosin to be here an dat wi choosin to play de game.

Wi aal got dat in common. Wi aal got good taste, even if som wantin to add some more seasonin to favor dere own tastes. Just remba, mi not likin tomatoes! Stop tryin to add tomatoes! Mi not acarin if somone likin tomatoes, dem neva be tellin mi dere gonna be tomatoes! Please! ..an don't nobody be suggestin, 'Oh but Scud it ok wi gonna be havin a no-tomatoe mode' yuh fiendish fiends!

 

[Majinvash]

It's been shown.
As per normal, people think they know better than those making the game and refuse to accept it.
Or they scream and shout because they just want to make others miserable and the Devs are showing they won't support that.

I'm looking forward to seeing other games come out with it (Shroud of the Avatar) or similar systems to give players choices (Star Citizen) so they can choose who to play with.
It is a sad time for trolls and griefers, these systems mark the end of their grip, their reign over MMOs (EVE Online for example) and how people play them.

Actions have consequences - trolls and griefers have brought mode switching upon themselves. If they had not be so zealous over trying to make others miserable, it may never have happened.
I, for one, don't care. I've only ever played online games with real life friends, so it has no impact on me. Mobius is catering for social gamers, so all is good there. Honest PvPers are getting CQC or can make a PvP group.
As far as I can tell, the only ones who are getting left out, are the ones who brought this change in game design about in the first place.

Sorry but FD has no idea what it wants from its game.

It is contradicting itself virtually every day.

In this very answer sessions the following is uttered.


Currently it's more "profitable" from a merit-earning perspective to commit hostile actions in the territory of other Powers than to support your own Power's growth - unless you're willing to spend substantial credits on non-combat Powerplay actions. Are there any plans to change this, or is this working as intended?

Powerplay allows the background simulation to dynamically change on a much larger scale than interactions with minor factions. These changes are generally at their most interesting when they involve conflict – that’s partly why the premise of Powerplay is about territorial control; conflict is a great way of generating drama. With this in mind, we’re happy that hostile actions are incentivised.

So its not referencing PVP but its getting pretty close. YES I am sure you can read that as conflict actions vs NPC's but really you think that counts as hostile actions, hunting down endless faction bots in someone else's space?

What drama? If i went into ANY mode and killed every NPC in your faction, A would you even know about it and B would you even care?

In another thread they are saying they don't want guilds etc
Now they are making player groups in game and allowing us to become factions.

Sorry if that isn't guild what is?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=guild

Lets not forget CQC... That is a mode that screams Open or Group ( Thanks Xbone ), although I am sure it will be there just for show for the Solo players to shoots bots in a new terribly arcady way.

So really until FDEV can really work out what direction they really want this game to go into and who their trying to market to.

This whole Open vs Solo bull is pointless cos I am not even sure what game mode or style of player we are even arguing over any more.

So we cant pirate as many traders, zzzzzz that got old months ago...... Still the most interesting thing in the game.

So that leaves simple outright PVP for many of us and still no content.

GG FDEV

Majinvash

 

[Tuub t Tute]

So that leaves simple outright PVP for many of us and still no content.

Majinvash

This comes up repeatedly and the repeated general player response is "Go make yourself a pvp-focused Mobius, where anyone who joins knows and expects that any interaction will be non-consensual and hostile so ALL of you can get what you want."

You know what the response has been over and over again "Too difficult to organise, too difficult to administrate..."

Prove us all wrong. Show us that more than 50% of the player base would join your pvp-centric mode. Give us the irrefutable data, so we and FDev need to go "Blimey, they were right..."

 

[Roland2]

Lets not forget CQC... That is a mode that screams Open or Group ( Thanks Xbone ), although I am sure it will be there just for show for the Solo players to shoots bots in a new terribly arcady way.


Majinvash

I don't think it will be mode related at all. Probably a menu selection, like the training is now. Maybe some xbone players can shed some light on this?

As for the part about arcady solo players, Devs have already stated that its going to be PvP only.

Edit: A new phrase for Cody's list? "terribly arcady"

 

[Robert Maynard]

In another thread they are saying they don't want guilds etc
Now they are making player groups in game and allowing us to become factions.

Sorry if that isn't guild what is?

I read the Dev Update text as indicating that there will be more information forthcoming as to how player sponsored* minor factions will be able to become Powers.

*: note the use by the Devs of "sponsored", not "run" or "controlled" - sponsored - in the same way that affiliating to a Power provides effort but no direct control.

 

[KaizoMK]

This comes up repeatedly and the repeated general player response is "Go make yourself a pvp-focused Mobius, where anyone who joins knows and expects that any interaction will be non-consensual and hostile so ALL of you can get what you want."

You know what the response has been over and over again "Too difficult to organise, too difficult to administrate..."

Prove us all wrong. Show us that more than 50% of the player base would join your pvp-centric mode. Give us the irrefutable data, so we and FDev need to go "Blimey, they were right..."

Not sure if this is what you're talking about, but I wonder if it's more reasonable to make two very large modes (pvp, pve.....forget solo or private and just improve the party system) or to have these several modes going (open, solo, large numbers of private groups including Mobius.) They would both influence the background sim equally in either case, would two large things be easier to manage?

 

[Tuub t Tute]

I read the Dev Update text as indicating that there will be more information forthcoming as to how player sponsored* minor factions will be able to become Powers.

*: note the use by the Devs of "sponsored", not "run" or "controlled" - sponsored - in the same way that affiliating to a Power provides effort but no direct control.

Yup, the Lugh faction (most famous one I can think of) and so on, can get a blueprint on what they would need to do to make their boss npc character one of the top 10 (unless they expand the pantheon). Still doesn't mean they will get to build player controlled real-estate, or get guild tags, or an in-game comms channel, or a bank, or a guild house or any of that.

 

[Jockey79]

Sorry but FD has no idea what it wants from its game.

It is contradicting itself virtually every day.

In this very answer sessions the following is uttered.


Currently it's more "profitable" from a merit-earning perspective to commit hostile actions in the territory of other Powers than to support your own Power's growth - unless you're willing to spend substantial credits on non-combat Powerplay actions. Are there any plans to change this, or is this working as intended?

Powerplay allows the background simulation to dynamically change on a much larger scale than interactions with minor factions. These changes are generally at their most interesting when they involve conflict – that’s partly why the premise of Powerplay is about territorial control; conflict is a great way of generating drama. With this in mind, we’re happy that hostile actions are incentivised.

So its not referencing PVP but its getting pretty close. YES I am sure you can read that as conflict actions vs NPC's but really you think that counts as hostile actions, hunting down endless faction bots in someone else's space?

What drama? If i went into ANY mode and killed every NPC in your faction, A would you even know about it and B would you even care?

In another thread they are saying they don't want guilds etc
Now they are making player groups in game and allowing us to become factions.

Sorry if that isn't guild what is?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=guild

Lets not forget CQC... That is a mode that screams Open or Group ( Thanks Xbone ), although I am sure it will be there just for show for the Solo players to shoots bots in a new terribly arcady way.

So really until FDEV can really work out what direction they really want this game to go into and who their trying to market to.

This whole Open vs Solo bull is pointless cos I am not even sure what game mode or style of player we are even arguing over any more.

So we cant pirate as many traders, zzzzzz that got old months ago...... Still the most interesting thing in the game.

So that leaves simple outright PVP for many of us and still no content.

GG FDEV

Majinvash

For a start, CQC is nothing to do with the main game. If anything, it will take PvP players out of the main game so they can go play CQC - with it's own ships and no connection to your main save.

As for what FD want, they have been very clear on this since day one. Go read post 3 on page one, in full. It's all there.

The guild issues, while the powers could be seen as NPC guilds - they lack any sort of player function to enable to actually be a guild (like a Guild chat feature).
Right now, the powers are under FDs control, unlike a player guild which would be under the control of the players in it. The thing FD seem to want to avoid, is the big player guilds trying to control / force what they want in the game like in EVE.
And it has been said so many times, this is not EVE with cockpits. If you want EVE style features, you play EVE.

As for the modes, I'm "arguing" over keeping them in game, and keeping all content equal to the modes ~ something FD have been doing anyway, I'm just making sure they know that while a small few are making lots of noise for changing the main main game, there are more of us wanting it to stay as it is.

 

[DarkWalker]

Lets not forget CQC... That is a mode that screams Open or Group ( Thanks Xbone ), although I am sure it will be there just for show for the Solo players to shoots bots in a new terribly arcady way.

CQC is ranked Arena PvP, and separate from the modes; you can't take your own ship into CQC, you can't take the CQC ship out in open, you lose nothing when you are killed in CQC. The game should match you against others in balanced and instanced fights, with no way for outsiders to help.

In other words, it's PvP just the way I like it

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Not sure if this is what you're talking about, but I wonder if it's more reasonable to make two very large modes (pvp, pve.....forget solo or private and just improve the party system) or to have these several modes going (open, solo, large numbers of private groups including Mobius.) They would both influence the background sim equally in either case, would two large things be easier to manage?

No, that isn't what I am talking about. What I am talking about is that if there truly is a "Large number" of pvp'ers in this game, let them make their own private "This ain't Open, this is PROPER Open" group and get all of them off reddit and private group boards to sign up and show FDev how many players truly want "all content to be countered by non-consensual pvp actions"...

Think of it, 10,000+ players all online doing PP tasks. Nobody combat logs, everybody submits to pirates (if anyone flies a trade ship in that group)...exactly what we are told over and over again that they want. A Galaxy filled with players who want constant pvp with no respite and no shady backwaters to "hide away" in.

 

[Cody]

A new phrase for Cody's list? "terribly arcady"

Hmm... if it had been spelt correctly, possibly.

 

[DarkWalker]

Actions have consequences - trolls and griefers have brought mode switching upon themselves. If they had not be so zealous over trying to make others miserable, it may never have happened.

Quite.

And it's not something new, a decade and half ago Ultima Online was the poster child for allowing players to opt out of PvP because at first PKers were so active, so annoying, that roughly 70% of the new players were leaving and most of them saying it was because of PK.
(It wasn't the first, mind. The phenomenon was well known years before, from how MUD populations tended to evolve, though just like today devs tipping their toes into the MMO genre often thought their own game would be exempt.)

Seeing the market evolve has convinced me long ago that this is the nature of the beast; if open PvP is allowed, enough players will chose to be tools that they will ruin the experience for a large part of the potential player base. If the game is meant just for those that don't care — as is the case with EVE — then it can work (though CCP does struggle with exceptionally high churn rate, last I saw roughly half of the players that actually spent money on the game didn't last a single month); if the publisher is aiming for the general public, then it's a huge issue.

 

[Jockey79]

Not sure if this is what you're talking about, but I wonder if it's more reasonable to make two very large modes (pvp, pve.....forget solo or private and just improve the party system) or to have these several modes going (open, solo, large numbers of private groups including Mobius.) They would both influence the background sim equally in either case, would two large things be easier to manage?

Solo
Private Group
Open PvE
Open PvP

That way, people who wanted the single palyer game still have it, people could play with real life friends in pace in a private group, Mobius wouldn't need a new mouse every 4 weeks due to left click failure and the anything goes is still there for those who want it.

I think, if an Open PvE option were to show up in the main menu, Mobius Group would look very small, very quickly. Perhaps local chat may also see more use.

 

[DarkWalker]

Hmm... if it had been spelt correctly, possibly.

"Arcady" is a description for when games are meant to be quick consequences-free romps, and CQC does that intentionally. I'm not sure, but I do think I've even seen the term used to describe CQC either by the devs or by the press. I believe Majinvash is using the term as if it was an insult because he despises that kind of game, but it's a perfectly valid way to play that is loved and enjoyed by countless players.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Star Citizen will have a very similar mode that you actually access from arcade machines in stations, just like Wing Commander games in the past had; if that is not the devs proclaiming their game mode arcady, I don't know what it is

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

This comes up repeatedly and the repeated general player response is "Go make yourself a pvp-focused Mobius, where anyone who joins knows and expects that any interaction will be non-consensual and hostile so ALL of you can get what you want."

You know what the response has been over and over again "Too difficult to organise, too difficult to administrate..."

Prove us all wrong. Show us that more than 50% of the player base would join your pvp-centric mode. Give us the irrefutable data, so we and FDev need to go "Blimey, they were right..."

This always gets brought up, but never the reason why we should. Open is already that and more. It's also open enrollment and has a bigger population thana group could ever have. So I'll repeat the question, why should players who want pvp create a group when open is all that and more?

 

[KaizoMK]

This always gets brought up, but never the reason why we should. Open is already that and more. It's also open enrollment and has a bigger population thana group could ever have. So I'll repeat the question, why should players who want pvp create a group when open is all that and more?

Probably because you'd expect not to see any combat logging, and/or if you did that person would just be removed. But yea, the group size would be much smaller so why bother?

 

[Jockey79]

This always gets brought up, but never the reason why we should. Open is already that and more. It's also open enrollment and has a bigger population thana group could ever have. So I'll repeat the question, why should players who want pvp create a group when open is all that and more?

So, people who want PvP should not be forced to create a group, yet those who want PvE should be forced in to a group?

And PvPers are trying to get those shut down or nerfed.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Probably because you'd expect not to see any combat logging, and/or if you did that person would just be removed. But yea, the group size would be much smaller so why bother?

Good point, I didn't think of that. Might be worth it just for that alone. Too bad it will have an even worse, trader, pirate, bounty hunter ratio than open.