Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[-Pv-]

This whole thread seems like debate for debate's sake.

"Private groups do really solve all the issues, don't like how a group is run - don't play it, join another. We have a Groups section on the forums, so it's easy to find a new group and you can switch whenever you want.
Solo Mode is actually a Private Group, of 1. The Devs detailed this ages ago. It's only in the menu to make it easy to get in to. So we can remove Open and all the rubbish to go with it and stick to Solo and Groups."

Well said.

- You want to smash player and AI? Open seems the one for you. Note: I don't advocate removing or altering any of the modes. I prefer choice based on rational decisions.
- Want to smash player and AI with the help of your friends. Open works. Need more defense against undiscriminating pirates? Fly in Wings. Make them pay.
- You want to smash the AI with the help of your select friends? Private seems the best choice.
- You want to play against the AI all by yourself? Solo.

"Something for everyone. A comedy tonight"

The only problem I see with all this is those who cannot find enough wanted player victims in Open mode. Well, they've simply chased the rest of us into the other modes by attacking legal players.
It's not MY behavior or the play mode I chose causing the problem.

The other debate I see is open peeps don't want the universe influenced by Private and Solo people.
To me, this universe is very large. The affects of individuals over time are subtle.
As long as there are going to be mode choices, and the universe is going to be influenced by player actions, then altering the player's relationships, goals and progress in the game based on
mode choices would cause more hurt and player dissatisfaction than anything I've seen yet.
What Frontier has done is elegant and flexible. I like it.

Over time, social interaction will smooth out and player self policing will improve. The game code is still changing.

The third debate is those who favor a certain mode insist everyone else should only be able to use that mode. This is either envy or self centered.
I see nothing positive by promoting this attitude.

If you are prepared to be offended about what someone said about you on Facebook, don't read it.
-Pv-

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Yes, I can - and indeed am.



How, exactly is 10% more for killing an NPC in open - balanced? As opposed to killing that same NPC in Solo / Group?
How is higher rewards for being in Open mode, yet in a single instance due to poor ping - more risky than Solo Mode?

Everyone, gets the same rewards for the same actions regardless of where they are currently.
That is the very definition of "balanced"

Yet we have this thread, Mk 3, of the same tripe. Again and again and again.

No open = no problem.
As Group mode has been ignored for 3 mega threads, they must be equal - so keep groups and remove open.
Game Fixed.



Cheers for the heads up

We need some sort of mailing list so like minded forum goers can all mass ignore problem posters.

By problem posters, you mean people who disagree with you? You could have a thread discussing PvE only, and not one called the OpenVsSoloVsGroups thread if you are uncomfortable with the topic.

 

[ianw]

A player farming in his shieldless tradeship in PVE / Solo, then switching to PVP / open in his maxed out combat ship... this is a balance issue.

I "farmed" my indestructible Anaconda trading in open by the cunning but simple tactic of avoiding PVP entirely - even in the populated areas. Sometimes I didn't use shields.

What is the functional difference between me doing that and someone doing the same thing by avoiding PVP in solo?

Why does it matter to you and how is it a "balance" issue?

 

[Jockey79]

or simple Open-PVE Open-PVP.. quick easy. and informative.

CQC
Groups
Solo

Simple, game fixed. No more problems.

My Groups menu would read 2 entries;

Mobius
CODE*

Done, got a choice every time I play if I want PvP or PvE and no one gets harmed in the making of my story.

(* = replace "CODE" with the name of the person who actually ran the group)

 

[Mouse]

Yes I understand what a comparison is. I am saying it is an unfavorable and offensive one, and I reported it as such.

By your own actions you apparently don't.. so just trying to help.

"you say cancer kills people and destroys lives which is true.. than say .. this is just a game.. "

This is just a game. A 35 pound PC game -

$70 to some of us.. and if it is just a game.. go play.. why did you come here and want to change things if it is "just a game"

"Well those griefers that you feel are vital to the dynamics of open play.. others see them as .. Cancerous. It is just a game, but if some are destroying people's desire to play the game.. what happens to the game... it could die off.. hmm similar to what happens unfortunately with cancer. "

It is nothing like cancer though is it? No one actually dies.

Still don't get it .. the griefers are cancerous to the GAME not to the players.. to the players they are an annoyance and a burden and cause them to move elsewhere.. to the game.. they weaken and could possibly kill it.. sounds rather cancerous to me..

"As for Eve.. at no point have we tried to derail the discussion, we are briging up examples of what we are talking about and some of those examples are similar issues that have been dealt with in another games."

Exactly, they are other games. EVE is so different as to be incomparable. It is a point and click game. This is Elite Dangerous, I back FDEVS vision as it is. EVE online is its own thing.

Again you completely ignore that while different, the games are similar and the ACTIONS of some people in the games which were used as an example are identical or very similar to the ACTIONS used by some people in ED..

You claim others are trying to derail the discussion but purposely focus on other aspects to make your claims while ignoring what is actually relevent to the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

"And what I wrote FIT your definition "

No, you proposed a PvE mode.

nope.. it added a trigger warning to a proposal and to the current mode which fit your definition.

"Is that the kind of "trigger warning" you want?"

It sounds like it is the warning YOU want I was thinking something more informative and respectful. No one forces you to do anything. Your "alternative" is adding an extra game mode, nothing to do with my definition of warnings

If to play with other people I have to search or deal with PVP.. that isn't' forced? There is more to the meaning of forced than "physically"

- - - Updated - - -

How many did then? Seems that you are making things up.

go read through the mega threads.. sadly he isn't

 

[Mouse]

This whole thread seems like debate for debate's sake.

"Private groups do really solve all the issues, don't like how a group is run - don't play it, join another. We have a Groups section on the forums, so it's easy to find a new group and you can switch whenever you want.
Solo Mode is actually a Private Group, of 1. The Devs detailed this ages ago. It's only in the menu to make it easy to get in to. So we can remove Open and all the rubbish to go with it and stick to Solo and Groups."

Well said.

- You want to smash player and AI? Open seems the one for you. Note: I don't advocate removing or altering any of the modes. I prefer choice based on rational decisions.
- Want to smash player and AI with the help of your friends. Open works. Need more defense against undiscriminating pirates? Fly in Wings. Make them pay.
- You want to smash the AI with the help of your select friends? Private seems the best choice.
- You want to play against the AI all by yourself? Solo.

"Something for everyone. A comedy tonight"

The only problem I see with all this is those who cannot find enough wanted player victims in Open mode. Well, they've simply chased the rest of us into the other modes by attacking legal players.
It's not MY behavior or the play mode I chose causing the problem.

The other debate I see is open peeps don't want the universe influenced by Private and Solo people.
To me, this universe is very large. The affects of individuals over time are subtle.
As long as there are going to be mode choices, and the universe is going to be influenced by player actions, then altering the player's relationships, goals and progress in the game based on
mode choices would cause more hurt and player dissatisfaction than anything I've seen yet.
What Frontier has done is elegant and flexible. I like it.

Over time, social interaction will smooth out and player self policing will improve. The game code is still changing.

The third debate is those who favor a certain mode insist everyone else should only be able to use that mode. This is either envy or self centered.
I see nothing positive by promoting this attitude.

If you are prepared to be offended about what someone said about you on Facebook, don't read it.
-Pv-

Well said, but you forgot the 4th debate on a Duplicate Open mode that is PVE only so people don't have to search for special groups to PVE without having to worry about PVP.

 

[Jockey79]

How many did then? Seems that you are making things up.

Don't know - lost count of the goodbye threads in the first 3 months of the game going live.
So many not knowing about Mobius PvE group, walking away - the good news was, those that came to the forums were saved.
They seen the light and joined Mobius, they were saved from the abyss of not having a co-op space game to play.

But only 10% of players come to the forums, less than that post.

How many have we lost to the darkness,
How many souls fell in the black, never to return,
How many commanders have been lost to lack of information.

We will never know the true number, but their absence shall forever echo in the depths of space.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
With that out of the way, switching modes is the root of the problem here. Its simple balance.
…

I don't think that mode switching is the problem. Thinking that somebody might gain a perceived unfair advantage by mode switching is a problem. In reality (in my opinion) it is no problem at all. It doesn't affect the direct interaction between players how the other player got the credits for that A rated combat Anaconda/Python/FDL/Clipper/Sidewinder. There is no difference between someone grinding in Solo or spending a lot of time grinding in open in a very remote system nobody ever visits to get that ship.
In my opinion is in-game currency nothing that can or should be used to balance a game. Bounties doesn't prevent players from committing in-game crimes, insurance cost doesn't prevent players from risking their ships by doing silly things.

Mode switching just allows players to play the way they want depending on their mood.

Separated assets don't solve the problems people have in Open Mode. It doesn't make the game more balanced. It just forces players who want to play different modes to maintain different CMDRs.

The problems of this game - and I think they aren't that big, serious or problematic as some think they are - can be solved by fixing the relevant parts of the game mechanic. It will probably take some time, but FD is fixing and adjusting the game.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Again you completely ignore that while different, the games are similar and the ACTIONS of some people in the games which were used as an example are identical or very similar to the ACTIONS used by some people in ED..

You claim others are trying to derail the discussion but purposely focus on other aspects to make your claims while ignoring what is actually relevent to the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -




If to play with other people I have to search or deal with PVP.. that isn't' forced? There is more to the meaning of forced than "physically"

- - - Updated - - -




go read through the mega threads.. sadly he isn't

$70 to some of us.. and if it is just a game.. go play.. why did you come here and want to change things if it is "just a game"

I am happy with the way it is. You are the one advocating for change by adding a mode Not me.

"Again you completely ignore that while different, the games are similar and the ACTIONS of some people in the games which were used as an example are identical or very similar to the ACTIONS used by some people in ED.."

I did not ignore this. I just think it is not a meaningful way to determine how things will go in ED, given the devs are carefully choosing what features they do and do not wnat. Since I agree with their vision, they are doing it right.

"Still don't get it .. the griefers are cancerous to the GAME not to the players.. to the players they are an annoyance and a burden and cause them to move elsewhere.. to the game.. they weaken and could possibly kill it.. sounds rather cancerous to me.."

Again, we will see if this kind of unfavourable talk is allowed

"nope.. it added a trigger warning to a proposal and to the current mode which fit your definition. "

My "definition" that I provided did not mention proposals or game modes. Sorry, wrong again

"You claim others are trying to derail the discussion but purposely focus on other aspects to make your claims while ignoring what is actually relevent to the discussion."

I am just giving my opinions, if you think they are "irrelevant" then you are free to do so.

"If to play with other people I have to search or deal with PVP.. that isn't' forced? There is more to the meaning of forced than "physically"

No, you are not "forced" at all. Physically or otherwise. FD cannot make you do anything against your will. You can choose not to play in Open.

 

[JuicyFruits]

Yes, I can - and indeed am.



How, exactly is 10% more for killing an NPC in open - balanced? As opposed to killing that same NPC in Solo / Group?
How is higher rewards for being in Open mode, yet in a single instance due to poor ping - more risky than Solo Mode?

Everyone, gets the same rewards for the same actions regardless of where they are currently.
That is the very definition of "balanced"

Yet we have this thread, Mk 3, of the same tripe. Again and again and again.

No open = no problem.
As Group mode has been ignored for 3 mega threads, they must be equal - so keep groups and remove open.
Game Fixed.



Cheers for the heads up

We need some sort of mailing list so like minded forum goers can all mass ignore problem posters.

Its called risk vs reward. I'll do this step-by-step.

Lets start with risk. Do you agree that open is more risky?
Yes, it is, by definition. The fact that you can be interdicted / hunted by other commanders... that's a risk that you are willing to take when playing in open. Solo is safer. Really, there's not even an argument to be had here.

Now, rewards.
Rewards are currently the same, both in open and solo. But when you take PC out of the equation and only have to worry about NPCs, it allows you to maximize income per hour. Going shieldless on your trade run to maximise profit is a popular example. That's not something you'd want to do in open, but its fine to do it in solo.

So...what do we have?

Open ; Higher risk // Equal or less rewards. You think thats balanced?

But you know what? That's not even my problem with Open. I dont mind getting less money in open, because it is more fun.
Like I said before, its the switch from solo/open that bothers me. Thats not balanced.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…

How many have we lost to the darkness,
How many souls fell in the black, never to return,
How many commanders have been lost to lack of information.

We will never know the true number, but their absence shall forever echo in the depths of space.

Relax a bit. Take a deep breath. ED is a game. Don't make it a religion.

And don't try to take a way my option to switch between modes. I really like that aspect of Elite.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Its called risk vs reward. I'll do this step-by-step.

Lets start with risk. Do you agree that open is more risky?
Yes, it is, by definition. The fact that you can be interdicted / hunted by other commanders... that's a risk that you are willing to take when playing in open. Solo is safer. Really, there's not even an argument to be had here.

Now, rewards.
Rewards are currently the same, both in open and solo. But when you take PC out of the equation and only have to worry about NPCs, it allows you to maximize income per hour. Going shieldless on your trade run to maximise profit is a popular example. That's not something you'd want to do in open, but its fine to do it in solo.

So...what do we have?

Open ; Higher risk // Equal or less rewards. You think thats balanced?

But you know what? That's not even my problem with Open. I dont mind getting less money in open, because it is more fun.
Like I said before, its the switch from solo/open that bothers me. Thats not balanced.

Oh there is an argument to be had my friend, a Big argument I think it is safer, based on my own personal experience.

 

[Seonid]

A player farming in his shieldless tradeship in PVE / Solo, then switching to PVP / open in his maxed out combat ship... this is a balance issue.

How would you know? I have played in Open since Gamma, I have my trade Anaconda and about 6 other A geared ships which I use for random stuff I feel like doing that the time. How am I a balance issue?

 

[JuicyFruits]

Oh there is an argument to be had my friend, a Big argument I think it is safer, based on my own personal experience.

please explain that one to me

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

How would you know? I have played in Open since Gamma, I have my trade Anaconda and about 6 other A geared ships which I use for random stuff I feel like doing that the time. How am I a balance issue?

Your sig is poignant. I agree, "God Made Arrakis to Train The Faithful"(from Dune)

 

[Jockey79]

Its called risk vs reward. I'll do this step-by-step.

Lets start with risk. Do you agree that open is more risky?
Yes, it is, by definition. The fact that you can be interdicted / hunted by other commanders... that's a risk that you are willing to take when playing in open. Solo is safer. Really, there's not even an argument to be had here.

Now, rewards.
Rewards are currently the same, both in open and solo. But when you take PC out of the equation and only have to worry about NPCs, it allows you to maximize income per hour. Going shieldless on your trade run to maximise profit is a popular example. That's not something you'd want to do in open, but its fine to do it in solo.

So...what do we have?

Open ; Higher risk // Equal or less rewards. You think thats balanced? Yes, this argument was debunked ages ago - the "risk" is the "reward", that is why people choose PvP / Open to start with.

But you know what? That's not even my problem with Open. I dont mind getting less money in open, because it is more fun. As I said above, people choose PvP due to the excitement - that is the reward for the risk.
Like I said before, its the switch from solo/open that bothers me. Thats not balanced. Mode switching was an advertised feature from Kickstarter - and we can all do it. It's balanced as it's available to all.

Answers in quote

Relax a bit. Take a deep breath. ED is a game. Don't make it a religion.

And don't try to take a way my option to switch between modes. I really like that aspect of Elite.

I'm not trying to take away mode switching, how on earth did you jump to that ?
Did you follow the conversation, I was answering someone else.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

please explain that one to me

Well I have argued all day it is easier, based on my experience. However, I have been told asking for more regard for online is denying other players content and forcing them to play a certain way to get it. I have also been told it is not easier (apparently it has been "debunked"), but I have to disagree. Apparently it is also insulting to say that people have an "easy" game. Again, I don;t agree, because we all have the same game, so we can speak of it on equal terms i believe. But this is all just my opinion.

 

[-Pv-]

"Well said, but you forgot the 4th debate on a Duplicate Open mode that is PVE only so people don't have to search for special groups to PVE without having to worry about PVP."

I decided not to include a debate so convoluted I could not understand the point of it.

-Pv-

 

[Faded Glory]

please explain that one to me

Well I have argued all day it is easier, based on my experience. However, I have been told asking for more regard for online is denying other players content and forcing them to play a certain way to get it. I have also been told it is not easier (apparently it has been "debunked"), but I have to disagree. Apparently it is also insulting to say that people have an "easy" game. Again, I don;t agree, because we all have the same game, so we can speak of it on equal terms i believe. But this is all just my opinion.

Well, it's subjectively easier if you wish, but you cannot say it is objectively easier. If the only difference is CMDRs, and that is the only difference, there's no inevitability that you will meet one, nor that that CMDR will be lethal. We all meet the same NPCs, some are easy, some less so.

It is slightly insulting to insinuate that some players are playing Elite:Easy. There are lots of reasons why players choose the mode that they do, and it's unlikely, this being just a game, that any of it has to do with courage. You can still die to NPCs if you don't play it right, you can be vastly outnumbered playing in Solo.

It's different, if you think you are playing the hard way, good for you, but really, you're just playing the way you want to, as is everyone else.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
Lets start with risk. Do you agree that open is more risky?

No.

Yes, it is, by definition. The fact that you can be interdicted / hunted by other commanders... that's a risk that you are willing to take when playing in open. Solo is safer. Really, there's not even an argument to be had here.

Countless postings made in this thread and in the Mk II thread are a good indication that an argument can and will be made. Read the postings on this forum from PvP advocates how avoiding combat is way to easy. I think it's somewhat strange, but the best arguments against Open Mode being more risky are usually made by players who want ED to be "open only".

Now, rewards.
Rewards are currently the same, both in open and solo. But when you take PC out of the equation and only have to worry about NPCs, it allows you to maximize income per hour. Going shieldless on your trade run to maximise profit is a popular example. That's not something you'd want to do in open, but its fine to do it in solo.

This is a different way of saying that Open mode is more risky. It doesn't take into account that in Open Mode players can form wings and reduce the risk of NPC attacks while increasing their trade profit. Going shieldless is no a good example as some traders do that in Open and some traders in Solo use shields. In fact with wing trading it is actually Open Mode that allows more rewards.

- - - Updated - - -

…
I'm not trying to take away mode switching, how on earth did you jump to that ?
…

Sorry if I misunderstood something. Was a bit confused.