Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Robert Maynard]

At 1st it was a really friendly co-op experience, hell, its not exactly a money spinner but a bunch of folk were just working together having fun despite the lack of money...... until a small number of CMDRs decided to shoot em all up, the game has offered no protection at all... and more and more people are dropping to solo because it just is not fun for them any more.

The combative players who have decided to oppose the CG would probably claim that they are performing a service to the community by providing "emergent gameplay". What they really seem to be doing is shooting fish in a barrel - repetitive, lacking challenge. I expect that at least some of the attackers would also opine that players should not be able to change modes....

 

[Roybe]

the problem is (IMV) is that it is too easy to play the ganker. IF I wanted I could pop to hutton right now in open and cause mahem. Sure, on my own i would get taken down or forced to jump out eventually - , but in a vulture/combat python my costs would be minimum where as the havok and time i could cost people in the mean time would be huge!.

but if i team up with 3 other like minded folk and there is probably little anyone could do to stop us, esp as we could just log off as soon as the cavalry did turn up and then find another instance.

The biggest joke is these people then play the "coward" or "care bear" card..... I mean come on really, who is a coward in this scenario , the pilot in a vulture/python blowing up all cargo ships they see with nothing to lose other than a ~800k insurance claim (in the vulture), or the pilot in the T6 with an insurance claim and upto 2 million in cargo (sometimes) ?.

it is wrong that being the ganker is the easiest "role" to play in the game. until that is fixed, open will never be an attractive mode to a huge number of players.
IF I was ganked in open, but i knew that the person doing it was now going to have a very hard time of it, at least that would give me some comfort, but knowing that person can just go on .... and on.... and on..... without any downsides at all is such a sad state of affairs. The stuff going on at hutton is so sad. At 1st it was a really friendly co-op experience, hell, its not exactly a money spinner but a bunch of folk were just working together having fun despite the lack of money...... until a small number of CMDRs decided to shoot em all up, the game has offered no protection at all... and more and more people are dropping to solo because it just is not fun for them any more.

My point in all this is the modes do not matter. People choose to play where they want...and if they choose badly...they will either change their choice...or leave. In either case...I find myself apathetic to anyone's plight. I play where I want, fight how I choose, and lose or win based on those choices.

You apparently do not care for those that are killing people in busy CG's. That's ok. People drop to solo...that is ok also. People kill people in CG's in Open if you were not aware of that. They not only have the permission of the devs...they actually have their blessings. They expect this behavior. They designed this game so this behavior can, and will, occur.


I see this play style as neither 'right' or 'wrong'...it just exists...and people have options to either combat against it, through RP PvP, or get rewarded by avoiding it altogether utilizing the modes. To declare something 'right' or 'wrong' is trying to shame people into playing the game to some standard others have set. THAT is wrong...ask anyone that has been in this thread for any length of time. No one has the 'right' or 'wrong' way to play this game.

 

[bootsam]

Its a recruitment drive for groups like mobius. One day there will be no more open as it will just be occupied by the gankers. They are essentially just sullying their own doorstep. Then they will be in here complaining that there is no-one in open. Why is that mr open pvp? Because you have driven them all away. When you feast and feast and leave no time for recovery, suddenly its famine. So they find a feast and then they ravage and more and more cmdrs join mobius etc. Brilliant. Thanks more decent folks to say hi to. o7

 

[Ian Phillips]

I thought the "emergent gameplay" was provided by the organisers of the CG?

It has so far attracted 2500+ CMDRs to support the CG and has brought all sorts of co-operative play between them to the fore.

Shooting cargo ships isn't "emergent gameplay" anymore!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So combat patrol is waste of time, blockading is waste of time... see the pattern?

Yeah, I do.

The pattern that being completely uninterested in PP and wanting to dock and not be bothered by pilots going: My system, sod off!, I'm very glad I cannot be blockaded or combat patrolled.

 

[Mouse]

I thought the "emergent gameplay" was provided by the organisers of the CG?

It has so far attracted 2500+ CMDRs to support the CG and has brought all sorts of co-operative play between them to the fore.

Shooting cargo ships isn't "emergent gameplay" anymore!

Very true, but it won't stop some of them from trying to blow smoke up our hind ends by claiming "emergent gameplay"

 

[Scudmungus]

Rude boys tryin to hide true motives wid words?

Aalways.

 

[ianw]

It's very obvious by now (nothing new) that some people set out to deliberately spoil other people's gameplay by exploiting the game mechanics for ramming to avoid in game retribution when they know full well that most ships at Hutton aren't configured with boosters and decent shields and are severely weakened by wear and tear by the time they get to Hutton.

They see lots of people enjoying fun gameplay so they set out to spoil it because they can with no attempt to allow it to be fun for both sides because they simply don't care if anyone else is having fun as they can spoil it to have their fun.

And of course they ram the camera ship again because they can or maybe to get other people to watch their streams instead.

Of course it's no big deal really - we can go to private or solo and we can void them in open up to a point.

But let's not pretend they are adding anything of value to the game other than for themselves of course - which regrettably is legitimate according to the rules of the game.

Lots of people in the game make allowances for other people - you know normal courtesy you'd expect to see from other people in a shared public place IRL - others don't give a stuff about anyone else and think it's funny.

I think it would be funny if the whole thing moved to Mobius - excluding the list of names of spoilers that has accumulated in various places.

 

[defekt]

I can only comment reliably based on the opinions of people I personally know who play the game: not one of them plays in Open; it's always Private. This isn't entirely because of the risk of how easy it is to gank newbies, and how there apears to be almost no material consequence for committing said ganking, even within so-called 'secure' systems, but it's certainly a significant factor.

It's all well and good asserting that neither style of gameplay is 'right' or 'wrong', and that FD give their blessing to people who hop game modes, but the exodus of non-gankers from Open to Private will diminish what is arguably one of EDs greatest selling points: the open world multiplayer experience.

I'd say that the Risk:Reward ratio is skewed, if not nigh on completely obfuscated, in ED. I suspect that Traders would be fine with playing in Open if the risks of being attacked were clear, i.e., if you stick to 'secure' systems then the chances of being ganked become remote. In systems were the risk is high, for Traders for example, then so should the potential profits. This is good Risk:Reward. When it comes to the attackers, the Risk:Reward also needs to be firmer, in that if they attack someone in 'secure' space there needs to be material consequences to that, whereas presently there are almost no genuine come-backs worthy of concern.

Ultimately Open will become a barren gaming space, filled with wolves and precious few deer. It's already starting to feel that way. This isn't a sustainable position for the game to be in.

 

[Mouse]

Listening to all the crap going on around Hutton it still boggles the mind that some believe that forcing open on everyone would be the best thing for the game.. nope.. best thing for them for targets, but for everyone else.. horrible.

 

[Marra Morgan]

If only more people would stand up like that- perhaps Open would be a different environment. Unfortunately it's swamped with the likes of those who strangle puppies, swing cats by their tails and other nonsense- whether it be they weren't held enough as children (or too much), etc.

Why do you insinuate that players who choose to play the game in this way are puppy-stranglers and cat-swingers?
Another poster in this thread asserted that PvPer's are real-life criminals the other day.

I understand that you find their style of play disagreeable, but it's legitimately within the game's rules and you have the options at your disposal to avoid it completely.

Please, less of these silly accusations of what people are like out-of-game based on how they play.

 

[ianw]

Why do you insinuate that players who choose to play the game in this way are puppy-stranglers and cat-swingers?
Another poster in this thread asserted that PvPer's are real-life criminals the other day.

I understand that you find their style of play disagreeable, but it's legitimately within the game's rules and you have the options at your disposal to avoid it completely.

Please, less of these silly accusations of what people are like out-of-game based on how they play.

Whilst I'd agree that some characterisations of people's behaviour IRL are a bit OTT it's no worse than calling people cowards and carebears and all the other nonsense people come out with.

As far as I'm concerned it's simply that some people demonstrate by their actions/posts that they just don't care how their playstyle affects anyone even when it's obvious from the forums and from someone's loadout that they aren't looking for combat.

It would save a lot of pointless argument if these people (and others on their behalf) would stop trying to justify what they do as anything other than not giving a stuff for how anyone else wants to play.


I don't see it as any different to going to a pub and ignoring the unwritten rules about queuing for the pool table or intimidating people in a park to get off the tennis/basketball/football court or pitch. You don't just walk up to someone and demand they stop what they're doing and play with you.

Just because you can do this to people in game doesn't mean you should unless of course they consent to it. If they don't know whether someone consents they could err on the side if caution but they don't - either because they like spoiling other people's games or because they simply don't care.

It doesn't bother me personally - I play in open all the time and deal with it.

But those people add nothing to the game for many people and if they weren't here the only people it would spoil things for would be themselves.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

The combative players who have decided to oppose the CG would probably claim that they are performing a service to the community by providing "emergent gameplay". What they really seem to be doing is shooting fish in a barrel - repetitive, lacking challenge. I expect that at least some of the attackers would also opine that players should not be able to change modes....

Wasn't there a player group killing everybody at the Diso CG? They claimed they did so to force a lot of players into solo and that this would force FD to change the mode switching options - or something like that.

I always wonder why they have to find excuses for the thing they do. They can do what ever they want, kill everybody for no reason - the game allows it - and yet they try to justify their actions.

- - - Updated - - -

…

Shooting cargo ships isn't "emergent gameplay" anymore!

I thought that shooting up cargo ships/weaker opponents is the definition of "emergent gameplay". I've ever seen anything else described as "emergent gameplay".

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Rude boys tryin to hide true motives wid words?

Aalways.

Not always. Some are honest to themselves and others and just say that they do what they do, because they like it.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

They claimed they did so to force a lot of players into solo and that this would force FD to change the mode switching options - or something like that.

LOL, if true, then they really really are clueless.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

LOL, if true, then they really really are clueless.

The relevant posting

It's part of a longer term strategy that will put some pressure on FD. We have no idea whether it will succeed, but as FD sees player groups working on specific in game goals in a coordinated way and the result is to just drive more people to solo or private, we hope it will either influence their view of how CGs are handled (unable to influence while in solo or group, or at least vastly reduced influence) or to cause them to redesign group and solo play altogether (tracked as different accounts - your fortune in solo stays in solo).

 

[Seonid]

They may not have any idea if it will succeed or not but I do, as does anyone that has followed this thread from the original.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

As far as I'm concerned it's simply that some people demonstrate by their actions/posts that they just don't care how their playstyle affects anyone even when it's obvious from the forums and from someone's loadout that they aren't looking for combat.

It's one giant galaxy. Everyone's actions effect each other. A pvp player's actions are just more direct. As a trader you can raise the influence of a minor power, kill a trade route's profit, expand or block a power, or even just save up money to pvp in their own big bad ship. Just because the person is trading in their own little world doesn't mean thier actions exist in a box. They can and do effect others and the galaxy at large.

 

[ianw]

It's one giant galaxy. Everyone's actions effect each other. A pvp player's actions are just more direct. As a trader you can raise the influence of a minor power, kill a trade route's profit, expand or block a power, or even just save up money to pvp if their own big bad ship. Just because the person is trading in their own little world doesn't mean thier actions exist in a box. They can and do effect others and the galaxy at large.

Well yes everything affects everything but I don't think you can compare tiny indirect influence that can be easily countered indirectly - and probably doesn't even work half the time with the BGS being what it is - with direct player to player interaction that is wholly unequal in favour of the attacker(s).

You can't remotely compare the two in terms of the action itself or the outcome.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's one giant galaxy. Everyone's actions effect each other. A pvp player's actions are just more direct. As a trader you can raise the influence of a minor power, kill a trade route's profit, expand or block a power, or even just save up money to pvp in their own big bad ship. Just because the person is trading in their own little world doesn't mean thier actions exist in a box. They can and do effect others and the galaxy at large.

You hit the nail on the head - "are just more direct" - a trader affecting a trade route might influence trading to the extent that another player makes less profit - a PvP player can take huge bites out of another player's credit balance (in insurance excess and lost cargo)....