Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jesse Blue]

Why should players be rewarded for playing in their chosen mode? If a player wants to be affect by other players and, in turn, affect them, they play Open - the "reward" is the interaction with other players....

As to risk, the vast, vast majority of Open is exactly the same as Solo - empty of other players. Why should players who face no more risk receive more?

If open players face no more risk tan solo players, why people click on the 'Solo button' in first place? Shouldn't the open be as safe as Solo? Then, Why do we have daily threads about people fleeing in tears to solo?
.
Don't try to revert the argument, dropping all the burden on Open players. As stated in my previous post, even FD required 100% Open mode for their contest. For a reason. SOLO-OPEN modes have an inherent difference, otherwise, this debate wouldn't even exist.
.
.
Edit: And as answer to your question, Players in open should get a reward for choosing a game mode that is inherently more risky/difficult to play. It is the same as choosing between 2 different missions. The most difficult one should have better reward, right? The player still has the choice, but if it takes more risk, it should be properly rewarded.
.
And even considering that the difference in risk between Open-Solo is not very high, then it would only determine that the extra reward also should not be very high... But the extra reward must exist nevertheless.
.
One CMDR could only get its '1st triple elite' by playing 100% Open. Other commanders that play in open also want to have the same recognition/acknowlegdment for their extra efforts. As easy as that.

 

[Cody]

'Safe as Solo', eh... hmm. Safe as houses - 'til the wrecking ball* swings!


*Musical accompaniment withheld.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If open players face no more risk tan solo players, why people click on the 'Solo button' in first place? Shouldn't the open be as safe as Solo? Then, Why do we have daily threads about people fleeing in tears to solo?
.
Don't try to revert the argument, dropping all the burden on Open players. As stated in my previous post, even FD required 100% Open mode for their contest. For a reason. SOLO-OPEN modes have an inherent difference, otherwise, this debate wouldn't even exist.

People click the Solo option for their own reasons - they do not need to justify their choice to anyone - we have all been encouraged to "play the game how you want to".

Players sometimes post here having had, in their opinion, a bad experience in Open and then exercise their freedom of choice to then play in Solo - where there are guaranteed to be no players who will do the same again.

The "more risk" argument has been largely rebutted - there is only more risk when a player is instanced with players who oppose them - that is not the case for all players in Open at all times.

The contests, Race to Elite and NVidia trasure hunt, were Open only, presumably, to quell complaints from those who want to disrupt other players that they were unable to "interact" (impede?) their progress.

Frontier have reiterated *very* recently that all modes are equal and valid and that they are aware that that view is not shared by all players.

 

[EdzUp]

Why should players be rewarded for playing in their chosen mode? If a player wants to be affected by other players and, in turn, affect them, they play Open - the "reward" is the interaction with other players....

As to risk, the vast, vast majority of Open is exactly the same as Solo - empty of other players. Why should players who face no more risk receive more?

This has to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever come across, open players should be more rewarded for having to play in a mode with players who chest, grief etc. Just read ya forum its full of players who's come across another player who's favourite past time is killing other cmdrs without a word your galaxy is slowly filling with murderers and people who wasn't to destabilise the whole game, yes its a game choice but surely somewhere along the line X kills on innocent players should net you a fugitive status that cannot be paid off and is attached to the player. Yes it may seem unfair to them but killing X innocent players isn't fair either.

The ball is firmly in FDEV's court on this so I would hope they do something rather than fumble the ball and let murderers get away with it.

It's all the frag stealers, murderers, cheats that keep people from open you have to offset the idiots with a reward system to get people into open.

 

[KaizoMK]

Let's try this again.

Cowardly, cheating, filthy, casual, ignorant, risk-averse, mode-switching, misanthropic, Solo players!

Everything you said equally applies to open players as well. Take your hypocrisy elsewhere, buddy.

 

[Asp Explorer]

The problem is that Open mode players don't feel rewarded for the extra risk it takes to play in that mode.

So what happens if I log into Open on a double NAT and reject every IP that isn't an FD connection? Lulz - that is what happens. You cannot reward Open only players - because you cannot control Open only.

It's all the frag stealers, murderers, cheats that keep people from open you have to offset the idiots with a reward system to get people into open.

Again - you can not reward Open play. Idiots you encounter are easily sent to null. Fly around in an unarmed, unshielded Sidey and find the idiots. Route them out of your game

 

[Cody]

Everything you said equally applies to open players as well.

<grins> In your opinion, perhaps - not in mine. You are aware that I am a Solo player, yes? Strictly Solo - I don't even mode-switch!

As for your other comment: <guffaws>

 

[Kitiara]

If open players face no more risk tan solo players, why people click on the 'Solo button' in first place? Shouldn't the open be as safe as Solo? Then, Why do we have daily threads about people fleeing in tears to solo?
.
Don't try to revert the argument, dropping all the burden on Open players. As stated in my previous post, even FD required 100% Open mode for their contest. For a reason. SOLO-OPEN modes have an inherent difference, otherwise, this debate wouldn't even exist.

There is a difference, yes.

The difference is which other players you will meet. Some players of Elite prefer to interact with others. Other players of Elite prefer not to. A fundamental premise of this game is that both types of player are equally welcome, and equally valued.

That is what Frontier were using as a guiding principle when they designed the group system and it is what they achieved.

 

[Roybe]

The problem is that Open mode players don't feel rewarded for the extra risk it takes to play in that mode.
.
If I'm not mistaken, the '1st Triple Elite Commander' contest had as a sine-qua-non condition that all Rank points should be earned in Open mode. So even the very own game designers/developers did acknowledge that playing in Open is inherently more difficult/has more risk-merit than playing Solo. At least, enough extra risk to award a 'true' or 'valid' 1st triple elite status.
.
However, that extra risk component is currently utterly ignored/dismissed in every aspect of the game. Thus, most open players feel not properly rewarded, and if you ask my opinion, for a valid reason. The same underlaying principle which prevented a solo player from getting '1st Triple Elite' still exists, but FD chose to look the other way instead, not acting coherently.
.
FD doesn't want to change Open-Group-Solo switchability to give players freedom to chose? fine, it is a valid design choice and one that will attract/make most players happy. But most of the problem will be adressed just by gaving Open mode players that bit 'extra reward-acknowledgement' for taking the 'extra risk'.
.
For example, you may earn Rank and Reputation faster while in open mode. Or your missions/cargo may provide extra reward (rank+income) when played/traded in open. Imagine your cargo or your active missions having an 'open' flag attached to them. Likewise, stellar bodies discovered/explored in open also get the 'open' flag. However, if you switch to solo at any point, any active mission in your transaction tab, any cargo in your hatch and any stored nav data permanently loses the 'open flag' and stops providing the 'extra open bonus', even if you reconnect to Open later. You would still get the full reward/Price for your operations as you currently do, only without the extra bonus.

Although I understand your thoughts and logic..and appreciate them..you are misunderstanding what the existence of the modes is really about.


It's not about risk or reward. It's about creating a game where 'things' can happen...and players do not have to have bad feelings for those things happening. The Private people feel the design is primarily about a players freedom to play 'away from'. The Open players feel it is about PvP and things must be balanced. Both are incorrect. If everyone would think about the true reason for the design...it is a basic expectation to do anything you want in the game based on your personal ideas of morality.

Do you want to play with the maddening crowd...but not have to see them...you can. Do you want to protect your personal energy levels and play with others on your terms...that is legitimate also. Just as another persons desire to shoot and kill other players...or chase them...or act with military precision in a group. To the game, all this is valid...and no one gets 'paid extra' to do these things.

In this game the ability to choose to do anything you want is completely balanced against what anyone else wants to do. Remember, this game is based on an idea of PVP between groups....that is won by PvE collection of trophies. This is favored in the 'pVE modes' and appears to be kept that way for the forseeable future (see the thread dealing with stopping the advancement of the AI). However, there were some changes that have made the difference substantially reduced. This, in the scheme of things, was the only place any imbalance matters....and has been addressed.

That's my 2p...and good luck.

 

[Jesse Blue]

So what happens if I log into Open on a double NAT and reject every IP that isn't an FD connection? Lulz - that is what happens. You cannot reward Open only players - because you cannot control Open only.

Ah, so hardware issues are what prevent a fair treatment between modes?

 

[KaizoMK]

In regards to the whole "open should be more rewarding" debate...

Seriously, the rewards you get for playing the game can't be measured in mere credits. Credit gain is important, I'm not going to refute that. But the cr/h mentality is generally toxic to gameplay if it's the priority. I've made something like 3m in the past 15 hours I've played this game, and overall I had a pretty good time of it. If Open making your cr/h less optimized really messes with your steez, then go play Solo. The people that play in Open are doing it for the social aspect of it, and the ones having the most fun are not the ones complaining about Solo.

 

[Julissa Silver]

The problem is that Open mode players don't feel rewarded for the extra risk it takes to play in that mode.

So because there are a bunch of murderers flying about in Open that one may or may not run into, because the players themselves are the root cause of the 'risk' problem, FDev should put rewards into that mode for those players?


I've said it before, as so many other people have. The rewards for playing in open mode are precisely the same as the reasons for doing to in the first place; Interaction with other players and the often irrational, exciting or unpredictable behaviors and encounters that go with such interaction.

 

[KaizoMK]

<grins> In your opinion, perhaps - not in mine. You are aware that I am a Solo player, yes? Strictly Solo - I don't even mode-switch!

As for your other comment: <guffaws>

Absolutely, I mean I'm a solo player too, although I dip into Open when I'm feeling saucy. As I said, it equally applies. Some (insert mode here) players are cowardly, opportunistic, mode switching risk averse players. It's silly to use it as an argument against the other side.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Ah, so hardware issues are what prevent a fair treatment between modes?

I spluttered my coffee - thanks for the laugh!

There is no hardware issue here. I'm probably going to get an infraction or ban for this, but so many pew-pews have so very little know-know.

 

[Kolato]

Let it be as it is.
There is nothing wrong with someone flying Solo while others in open or group.

Here have some arguments for why it should not change :

1. Open players can be jerks.

No i'm totally fine with murderers or griefers, but when someone combat loggs, i'm not happy.
And don't you think it's okay to play solo to avoid combat loggers? It can be time-wasting and credit loosing if you're a bounty hunter to just have someone log off when you spent 50% hull and 30 minutes on him.

2. HIGH-RES SCREENIES

You can't take them in Open, simple as that

3. 4G/Mobile broadband anyone?

I have had to play on 4G sometimes, and i can tell you that if you don't want to use 100s of (YOUR LOCAL CURRENCY) on 4G you will have to play in Solo.

4. Instancing

Instancing sucks in open, but for some reason much better in groups. Of course this can be fixed, but it does not seem like frontier have any plans to do it.

5. Full instances

Okay this rarely happens - But if you say have 16 friends that want to play together and there is 21 players in the open instance, you simply can't get all your friends in the same instance due to the cap.
So if groups weren't here, you wouldn't be able to play together.

 

[Cody]

It's silly to use it as an argument against the other side.

Which is exactly the reason for that list's existence! <sighs>

 

[MegaJohnny]

This has to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever come across, open players should be more rewarded for having to play in a mode with players who chest, grief etc. Just read ya forum its full of players who's come across another player who's favourite past time is killing other cmdrs without a word your galaxy is slowly filling with murderers and people who wasn't to destabilise the whole game, yes its a game choice but surely somewhere along the line X kills on innocent players should net you a fugitive status that cannot be paid off and is attached to the player. Yes it may seem unfair to them but killing X innocent players isn't fair either.

The ball is firmly in FDEV's court on this so I would hope they do something rather than fumble the ball and let murderers get away with it.

It's all the frag stealers, murderers, cheats that keep people from open you have to offset the idiots with a reward system to get people into open.

But you've not addressed his point about the availability of empty systems. There are only so many griefers, and only a subset of those you can connect to, and there are a lot of systems.

One CMDR could only get its '1st triple elite' by playing 100% Open. Other commanders that play in open also want to have the same recognition/acknowlegdment for their extra efforts. As easy as that.

Race to elite was a direct competition between players. Open is an instancing mode. It implies the possibility of PvP but is not based around it (as evidenced by Wings update).

 

[KaizoMK]

Which is exactly the reason for that list's existence! <sighs>

....wow, okay. In space, no one can hear you sarcasm. Sorry about that!

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Hmmm, Open has potential risk to players because there is an antisocial, combative element amongst players who choose Open. I am not sure if rewarding the most antisocial players and even giving them further reason to be antisocial in order to protect their perceived advantage is the best balance?

The reward for Open is the personal satisfaction you feel at trading the boredom of safe min/maxxing, for the boundless excitement of proving yourself against human opposition!
That is the kind of reward that can't be measured in mere credits and it would be churlish of FDev to even try to quantify such a great experience in such base terms...

 

[Cody]

....wow, okay. In space, no one can hear you sarcasm. Sorry about that!

<cachinnates>