Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Julissa Silver]

I'm confused.

Can you actually win this game by getting more credits?

Help! How will I know when I've won...?

Worry not, confused pilot, I'm here to help! If you send me all your credits, I will count them and inform you if you won or not.

 

[Jockey79]

I'm quite confident now that I can claim two people as a sign that there is a clear majority .....

Make it 3,

As Theo P would say, I'm in.

 

[Faded Glory]

Worry not, confused pilot, I'm here to help! If you send me all your credits, I will count them and inform you if you won or not.

Thank you so much. The check will be in the post momentarily!

 

[nexxo]

Better a solution that shares the pain than a change that favours one play-style and disenfranchises a significant number of players, in my opinion, of course.

I don't think there is a pain. By giving players three separate character slots they can do whatever they want in each mode without it affecting the other. Galaxy and rules remain the same. Nobody is advantaged or disadvantaged; no play style is favoured over the other.

If it is not done however, we can forget about the possibility of player-built/crafted contents that other players can directly interact with, and that kills a lot of gameplay possibilities for everybody, in every mode.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody? You speaking for me now are you? Did some watery tart lob a sword in your direction when I wasn't looking?

Why, yes, how did you know?

Merlin? Is that you?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't think there is a pain. By giving players three separate character slots they can do whatever they want in each mode without it affecting the other. Galaxy and rules remain the same. Nobody is advantaged or disadvantaged; no play style is favoured over the other.

If it is not done however, we can forget about the possibility of player-built/crafted contents that other players can directly interact with, and that kills a lot of gameplay possibilities for everybody, in every mode.

While you may not consider removing the ability for a player to play in whichever play-mode they choose on a session-by-session basis to be a significant change, there are those who disagree. This feature has been part of the game design since the outset - and has been debated since the Kickstarter ended - Frontier launched the game, eight months ago, with this feature intact.

If player created anything will exist in the game, Frontier will, no doubt, come up with a way for them to exist - whether random other players can encounter them is anyone's guess. Whether they will be able to be damaged likewise.

 

[DarkWalker]

Not really, squeaky wheel isn't anything new. On the other hand, posts by Majinvash et al do absolutely prove that the original design decision for the differing games modes was the right one.

After he proudly posted about how he "infiltrated" the Mobius group just to break its rules? I welcome anything that allows me to not have to ever meet Majinvash or anyone that flies with him. He is living proof that a way to screen out unwanted players is a great boon for the game.

(And I still find his forum name kinda ironic. Vash the Stampede is among the more carebear characters you could ever find. In a western-themed world where nearly everyone has a gun and gunfights are common, he did everything he could to avoid having to fight; in the end, he broke down and nearly went crazy the first time he was forced to kill.)

 

[Tuub t Tute]

I'm sure it does, but Frontier is painting itself into a corner here. Horizons is proposing possible player-owned bases with looting and crafting. This would add a whole new layer of activities to the game --expedition outposts, pirate lairs etc. Now what do we do with those bases in Solo play? Can they still be looted by other players? If not, then how do these bases exist in a galaxy shared with Open players?

As soon as the game allows for players to build/craft/insert content in the galaxy that other players can directly interact with, you're stuck with a dilemma as to how Solo players' content is handled in a galaxy also occupied by Open players.

It was really not a good idea. Frontier has a way of trying to please everybody, and creating a confused fudge that pleases nobody at all.

Do you have a source for "proposed player owned bases?" I only saw them talk about moon bases that could be attacked either by ship or SRV. Nothing about players owning them :/

 

[nexxo]

While you may not consider removing the ability for a player to play in whichever play-mode they choose on a session-by-session basis to be a significant change, there are those who disagree. This feature has been part of the game design since the outset - and has been debated since the Kickstarter ended - Frontier launched the game, eight months ago, with this feature intact.

Yup, but it could cause a problem in the future.

If player created anything will exist in the game, Frontier will, no doubt, come up with a way for them to exist - whether random other players can encounter them is anyone's guess. Whether they will be able to be damaged likewise.

That's just crossing your fingers and hoping it will magically get sorted out. Not reassuring. If you can come up with a better solution I would be happy to hear it-- I have no problem with the whole Solo/Group/Open mechanic as it stands; I just see it causing difficulties for future gameplay.

 

[Seonid]

I welcome anything that allows me to not have to ever meet Majinvash or anyone that flies with him. He is living proof that a way to screen out unwanted players is a great boon for the game.

And that's the thing, some like yourself want that choice. I rely on the fact that space is really big, I'm off the beaten track and the chances that he and I will ever meet are effectively zero despite having played in Open since Gamma. But that's my choice. Player choice always wins.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So was (proper) offline play, but it was canned because it messed up the fundamental functioning of the game.



That's just crossing your fingers and hoping it will magically get sorted out. Not reassuring. If you can come up with a better solution I would be happy to hear it-- I have no problem with the whole Solo/Group/Open mechanic as it stands; I just see it causing difficulties for future gameplay.

Offline mode was cancelled before the launch of the game. It caused considerable upset, recrimination and refunds. That was for a core game feature cancelled *before* launch.

I doubt Frontier want to venture the road of deleting core game features over eight months *after* launch....

As to player created assets - detail is lacking on their scope - it really is a case of wait and see what Frontier has in mind (and I expect that they've considered them in some detail).

 

[Globusdiablo]

No it's not a lot of work. Just give each player three character slots. One for Open, one for Solo and one for Group. Progress and assets for the character in one game mode cannot be carried over to the other game mode.

I agree. But would this really satisfy everyone?

I have a sneaking suspicion that a new mega thread would emerge, with Open mode commanders complaining about "no cannon fodder to instakill" (insert any other reason of your choice). Open mode would turn into Arena mode, with lots to lose and bragging rights to gain. I think CQC is better suited for this.

As it stands now, Solo and Group commanders can dip into Open at their leisure, and truthfully, I think the Open commanders should be thankful for this.

Let's be blunt here. I don't hear many commanders from Group and Solo mode complaining about the existence of Open mode, or shared worlds for that matter...

Careful what you wish for.

Fly safe

 

[Seonid]

I don't hear many commanders from Group and Solo mode complaining about the existence of Open mode, or shared worlds for that matter...

I've not heard any, funny that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Let's be blunt here. I don't hear many commanders from Group and Solo mode complaining about the existence of Open mode, or shared worlds for that matter...

Careful what you wish for.

*IF* I had to choose a single mode then it would be Private Groups - there, I'd be able to play Solo, in a Private Group (of course) and, in time I expect, a pseudo-Open group with unrestricted access. No need to select Open (once and forever) to be able to play with strangers. The ability to select which Private Group to play in would be analogous to selecting a mode currently.

 

[Globusdiablo]

*IF* I had to choose a single mode then it would be Private Groups - there, I'd be able to play Solo, in a Private Group (of course) and, in time I expect, a pseudo-Open group with unrestricted access. No need to select Open (once and forever) to be able to play with strangers. The ability to select which Private Group to play in would be analogous to selecting a mode currently.

I'll not argue with you.

 

[DarkWalker]

*IF* I had to choose a single mode then it would be Private Groups - there, I'd be able to play Solo, in a Private Group (of course) and, in time I expect, a pseudo-Open group with unrestricted access. No need to select Open (once and forever) to be able to play with strangers. The ability to select which Private Group to play in would be analogous to selecting a mode currently.

Technically, all "modes" are just different groups. Open is just what was described back during development as the "All" group, a default group that every player is automatically a member of; Solo is just a private group of one, and was actually described as that back then.

 

[ianw]

Do you have a source for "proposed player owned bases?" I only saw them talk about moon bases that could be attacked either by ship or SRV. Nothing about players owning them :/

I don't recall anything about player owned bases. Even if we were all in open there would be problems.

They'd have to be indestructible - and inaccessible to non owners otherwise the owners would be screaming blue murder when people in another open instance that were invisible to them started blowing the place up unopposed. Or just occupied the building and posed for pictures.

 

[DarkWalker]

Just found something very interesting about why you should never offer "must have" rewards tied to content not all players will enjoy. It's an article by Raph Koster, about the issues SOE had with implementing Jedi in pre-NGE Star Wars Galaxies, and how awarding the Jedi class to players that maxed a random set of skills was a bad idea:

You get the idea. Everyone started playing everything they didn’t like. Oh, some players discovered new experiences they never would have otherwise. Many emerged from this with a new understanding of the fundamental interconnectedness of a society. But most just macroed their way or grinded their way through it all as fast as possible, dazzled by the booby prize of Jedi.

Satisfaction fell off a cliff. I never did see a marketing push for Jedi — never saw a marketing push for the game at all, to tell the truth. But what I do know is that one month after Holocron drops began, we started losing subs, instead of gaining them. SWG had been growing month on month until then. After Holocrons, the game was dead; it was just that nobody knew it yet.

(For those that didn't read the article, the Holocrons he talks about were the hints that becoming a Jedi was just a matter of mastering a number of skills, given away because people in Marketing wanted players to figure out how to become a Jedi sooner rather than later, and that allowed players to discover that mastering all those skills had an extra prize tied to it.)

This is part of why I'm against any kind of big push towards Open. Not all players enjoy Open, and feeling forced to play in it could have a similar effect here.

 

[nexxo]

As to player created assets - detail is lacking on their scope - it really is a case of wait and see what Frontier has in mind (and I expect that they've considered them in some detail).

Possibly. Some things Frontier does suggests meticulous planning years in advance, other things suggest they're thinking it up as they go along.

 

[DarkWalker]

I don't recall anything about player owned bases. Even if we were all in open there would be problems.

They'd have to be indestructible - and inaccessible to non owners otherwise the owners would be screaming blue murder when people in another open instance that were invisible to them started blowing the place up unopposed. Or just occupied the building and posed for pictures.

XBOne players. PS4 players when the game is released for them. Players distant enough from the owner that their mutual ping guarantees they won't ever be placed in the same instance. Players in a different time zone, or that for any reason play when the structure owner is sleeping, at school, at work, etc. And so on.

There is no way to guarantee that players will be able to defend their structures. The game's networking layer was just not made to allow that. And, even if it was to be replaced, issues with timezones and real world distances would still exist; pray tell me, where one can put a server that will provide a satisfactory experience when you have someone from the US and someone from Australia facing each other?

 

[Mouse]

Just found something very interesting about why you should never offer "must have" rewards tied to content not all players will enjoy. It's an article by Raph Koster, about the issues SOE had with implementing Jedi in pre-NGE Star Wars Galaxies, and how awarding the Jedi class to players that maxed a random set of skills was a bad idea:



(For those that didn't read the article, the Holocrons he talks about were the hints that becoming a Jedi was just a matter of mastering a number of skills, given away because people in Marketing wanted players to figure out how to become a Jedi sooner rather than later, and that allowed players to discover that mastering all those skills had an extra prize tied to it.)

This is part of why I'm against any kind of big push towards Open. Not all players enjoy Open, and feeling forced to play in it could have a similar effect here.

Ugg.. I remember that..and the instant change in the game they wrought