Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
To me at least, the idea of an Open / PvP specific group was more to do with the understanding that players in that group played it exclusively, unlike Mobius where there is no requirement that you only play in Mobius, just that when you do you abide by its rules. Therefore, players in this group (essentially the exclusive server that some people have asked for), would be consenting to any and all PvP / player encounters, and would not change to a different mode for any reason. So, simply put, whereas Mobius says 'no non-consensual PvP', the PvP group would say 'no swapping to another mode'.
Nobody from the Open side seems to think this would work, therefore you are probably right, there's not much point in setting it up. I'd go a step further and say that FD probably don't think such a mode would work, hence why they don't add one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Arkady Darell, please pick up the white courtesy phone... 
My take on solo/group/open is that each actually adds to the other.
In a 400Bn starfield universe I would be amazed to be bumping into many other pilots of the CMDR variety.
Around Community Goals I would expect to see, and have seen, a decent number, as well as see their influence on commodity availability. Indeed I can say with absolute certainty that the markets do react to players, it's just that normally there are too few of us to noticably effect supply/demand. Anyone who's done a CG will know this.
In space I would also expect each ship to keep its own ship-time, and sleep/fly cycle. So if I saw the same CMDRS all the time I would frankly become worried, and probably start applying for injunctions, and indeed I would expect many to fly with their 'CMDR transponder' switched off - directly echoing instancing within group/open play.
Irrespective of all this, the aspect of ED that I enjoy the most is how it rams down my throat how utterly insignificant I am, how futile everything I do is. For those of you who need the gist see this. Once you 'get' this, then you will have joined the BBC-B Elite '84'ers, and you are very welcome to the club.
TL/DR That you don't see other CMDRs all the time doesn't mean that they aren't out there and 'directly' effecting you, much as in real life. If I am 5 minutes behind you, then I am on another tube train, but we are all still commuters, it's just that we will never meet.
In a 400Bn starfield universe I would be amazed to be bumping into many other pilots of the CMDR variety.
Around Community Goals I would expect to see, and have seen, a decent number, as well as see their influence on commodity availability. Indeed I can say with absolute certainty that the markets do react to players, it's just that normally there are too few of us to noticably effect supply/demand. Anyone who's done a CG will know this.
In space I would also expect each ship to keep its own ship-time, and sleep/fly cycle. So if I saw the same CMDRS all the time I would frankly become worried, and probably start applying for injunctions, and indeed I would expect many to fly with their 'CMDR transponder' switched off - directly echoing instancing within group/open play.
Irrespective of all this, the aspect of ED that I enjoy the most is how it rams down my throat how utterly insignificant I am, how futile everything I do is. For those of you who need the gist see this. Once you 'get' this, then you will have joined the BBC-B Elite '84'ers, and you are very welcome to the club.
TL/DR That you don't see other CMDRs all the time doesn't mean that they aren't out there and 'directly' effecting you, much as in real life. If I am 5 minutes behind you, then I am on another tube train, but we are all still commuters, it's just that we will never meet.
Last edited:
That video is spot on !!!
That doesn't mean much since the mode will be optional, which is kind of the whole problem. Sure you'll be able to see everyone in your group, but that's it. Everyone else will still be able to undermine, your power/minor power unhindered. It does nothing to address the issue most open players have with mode switching.
A combat logging ban, would be more attractive than no mode switching imo. If the mode actually had a healthy player ratio and a decent amount of players, I would join it just for that reason alone.
Last edited:
I guess the point I was making is that if players won't voluntarily sign up for a group where they can demonstrate that they play only Open with other like minded players, what makes people think that if FD provided a second, separate server where that was enforced anybody would actually play it.
While a "combat logging ban" is a good idea - one thing that really irritates me is this whole "most open players".
Sorry, but "most open players" don't come to the forums. And "most open players" can and will speak for themselves. Plus if "most open players" had an issue I don't think Zac would be saying;
Some open players have a problem (a small, loud, minority), "most open players" are enjoying the game regardless of mode switching, proven by the above Dev quote above (until they decide to speak for themselves on here, their login data that the Devs use to make that statement speaks for them).
- - - Updated - - -
I'd +1 if it would let me.
If people won't partake of a PvP group, then a PvP server would be a waste of time and money. Simple.
PvP is an optional, small part of the game - not is major mechanic. Shame some ignore that fact.
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
Hmm.....
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
As much as there is a lot of crossover between the 2, they ARE different issues.
Many player play in open and presumably like it there, but they may be dead set against guilds....... it does not necessarily mean they are interested in mode swapping one way or the other.
Me personally, I am still at my default position of both topics which is stick with what was outlined to us before and during launch from the devs because that is the game we all knowingly bought, and some ONLY bought because of this... but again, clearly many do not agree.
TLDR they are different (but related perhaps) issues..... keep em separate. imo.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Uh-oh.... <scarpers>
It could be called "The circular debate thread"
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I'd agree - Agony_Aunt suggested that split after the new Guild / Player Owned Stations thread started - a good suggestion, in my opinion.
However.... The discussions on Guilds will inevitably, again in my opinion, move towards ownership / territorial control - so those threads would probably see a whole load of duplication.
Open and Guilds will never work until
Open is when you see everyone in the same instance ( hundreds of players and not a limit of 8/16/32 ( which ever the current one is ).......
Until you can see everyone, friend and enemy and have large scale battles, blockades and complete control of a station then these discussions are like beating a dead horse.
Open is when you see everyone in the same instance ( hundreds of players and not a limit of 8/16/32 ( which ever the current one is ).......
Until you can see everyone, friend and enemy and have large scale battles, blockades and complete control of a station then these discussions are like beating a dead horse.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... which is not going to happen* with the game's chosen P2P/Server-Lite networking system.
*: until consumer broadband connections are improved to a level where we have nice low pings, reliable speed and no P2P traffic shaping by ISPs....
Last edited:
- Status