Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jockey79]

Uh, I read that a bit differently. First, it says that at least 11,000+ players want social contact without pvp forced on them.
Second, I don't understand "PVEers being forced to PVP." No one in Mobius is forced to do anything; it's a gentlemen's agreement to behave in a neighborly way, saving pvp contests between players for special occasions and by agreement on both sides.

Apart from the six (6) incidents of non-consensual PvP in the PvE group.
Thus proving that there actually isn't a PvE group at all - only a holding area for when CODE get really bored.

Manjivash (or however it is spelt) claims he is back in the Mobius group under a new commander name, shortly after being kicked out the first time - while I think this is just rubbish to spread paranoia, it does show that actually could be the case as a ban is not account based, but commander based - delete the commander, you delete the ban from the group and can reapply under a new name.

So again, I'll say;

Mobius Group is just a holding area for when CODE get really bored.

And unless FD bring out a real PvE Mode (which they won't do), nothing will change.

 

[Grumpy181155]

Well everyone of those Open situations could easily contain a player who chases you and kills you. If they are not a problem for you, why want a PvE mode? I think the examples provided are unscientific at best, so no conclusion could be reached in this hypothetical risk assessment. I have yet to encounter an AI i cannot outrun/outwit..

I'm just going to jump in here for a sec. Take the scenario of the three pirate wing in combat specced ships interdicting a trader in a Type 7, 8 or 9 - who do you think is at risk here?

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I'll happily show you where you made an accusation against a commander based on their ability to use a controller - if you can show me where I said you made such an accusation. I also didn't say that you said anything negative about any commanders.

I don't think what you said is offensive - I asked you a question.

This is fun isn't it?

"I'll happily show you where you made an accusation against a commander based on their ability to use a controller "

Please do, I requested it. Feel free to report it, as that would be against the forum rules. You insinuated that I was not being sympathetic to the feelings of commanders who cannot outwit AI, when I never discussed anyone but myself It just seems you were reaching for a reason to find offense in my simple point "I cannot find an AI/Group of AI I cannot outwit or kill". Nothing insensitive at all about saying that If you agree I made no accusation, why bring it up in the first place? As a disabled commander, I still take pride in my ability to be good at the game. I don't usually bring it up though..

 

[JuicyFruits]

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.

Isnt that the very definition of "risk" ? You risk encountering an enemy CMDR in open. Maybe, maybe not. But the risk is still there.

I also don't want to "diminish" solo. There is nothing superior about open. Its a game and the 2 choices are valid. However, at the end of the day, when talking about balance, IMO, Open is more risky, and something should be done about that. I don't claim to have the best answer, but at least I am trying to come up with suggestions and possible solutions.

 

[Jockey79]

I'm just going to jump in here for a sec. Take the scenario of the three pirate wing in combat specced ships interdicting a trader in a Type 7, 8 or 9 - who do you think is at risk here?

The combat ships - that's why they stack SCBs, work in a team and combat log at the first sign of trouble.

Those T9s can fit 5 guns (2x size 1 and 3x size 2) you know, that could decimate a wing of FDL's in seconds

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I'm just going to jump in here for a sec. Take the scenario of the three pirate wing in combat specced ships interdicting a trader in a Type 7, 8 or 9 - who do you think is at risk here?

Well if I am in the the type 7, me Would not be the first time. In Solo I always manage to escape or win though. In Open, NEVER in a type 7. Usually make a few jokes as I dump the Onionhead.

 

[Jockey79]

but at least I am trying to come up with suggestions and possible solutions.

So am I.

Remove Open. Problems solved.
You can still do everything in private groups, so it won't impact you in any way.

 

[JuicyFruits]

Hang on - I think know this one - is it no?



I think you need to expand on risk in the following scenarios;

Open - I'm on my own - no other players - risk assessment?

Open - I'm trading - all the other players in SC are traders and/or have no FSD interdictor - risk assessment?

Open - I'm a pirate with my wing buddies - all three of them - we all have A rated combat ships rigged for PVP - risk assessment?

Open - I'm doing the Hutton run in open - Code are blockading the system! - in another instance as luck would have it - mine is clear - risk assessment?

Solo - I'm a trader no weapons fitted - haven't done combat since the trading scenarios - I get interdicted by medium level AI pirate who isn't taking no for an answer - risk assessment?

I'm sure you can think of more.

I'm sure we can all cherry pick situations where a CMDR is in open and nothing bad happened to him, thus we can claim that Open is not risky at all.

In other news, I just ate, so world hunger is a myth.

- - - Updated - - -

So am I.

Remove Open. Problems solved.
You can still do everything in private groups, so it won't impact you in any way.

Like I said earlier, the population is already spread pretty thin in the whole galaxy.

What would happen if everyone in open was forced to join smaller groups? It would get pretty lonely.

 

[relayer]

After the hutton CG fiasco...

Uh... what fiasco? Seems to me the majority of players in that CG had a blast (go look at the Active Community Goals thread if you don't believe me). People interacted in some pretty cool ways - waves of huge trade ships and anacondas making the 90-minute trip multiple times to drop cargo for the small-to-medium guys because there are no large landing pads at Hutton and so they could be involved. Wings and single defenders engaging pirates and the usual sprinkling of sociopaths. People who've never made the Hutton Trek, which is considered one of the classic "things to do" in E : D. Code shooting their mouths off; "this CG is illegitimate." Hutton Station Radio. We got up almost to top tier; if the stinkers hadn't been blocking landing pads we probably could have hit it. Oh yeah, and the stooges kept blowing up the Hutton Twitch stream so their bragging about cheats, scripts and so on couldn't be captured to send to FD (although much was captured and sent).

So... how is that a failure? All participants said it was the most fun CG they ever did.

 

[Grumpy181155]

My two cents worth. Elite gives me two choices every time I start the game. Where will I play - Open / Solo or somewhere in the middle and secondly how am I going to play - law abiding citizen / murderer or somewhere in the middle. Those choices are mine to make and while some may criticise me for them they can't alter them as they are my choices for my reasons. I don't / shouldn't criticise others for the game choices they make. As soon as I press that Open button I should expect both the good and bad that comes with it.
.
To each their own - fly safe Commanders.

 

[Jockey79]

I'm sure we can all cherry pick situations where a CMDR is in open and nothing bad happened to him,

Who needs to, read the mega threads - the number of people moaning "open is a wasteland" - if it's such a "wasteland" then there is no one to interdict you or provide that "risk" you keep harping on about.

Open = wasteland = no risk = no reward

Links in my Sig for you to read it yourself, I assume you know how to use those links to filter posts ?

 

[relayer]

But people doing this are likely to be so few and far between, if any at all, to not be a real problem.
And if they're really going that far over a game, then I pity them more than I worry about them!

Submitting to you also (after Juicy Fruits) the Hutton Mug Run, just completed. The Twitch stream was continually being shot out because the derps suddently realized people were screenshotting their bragging about just such things.

 

[Jockey79]

...
So... how is that a failure? All participants said it was the most fun CG they ever did.

My first CG.

The Facebook Group was amazing for it, and the folks at Hutton Radio doing the broadcasting.
Having to wait 15 minutes to dock was annoying in Open - wasn't much quicker in the Mobius Group either lol.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Uh... what fiasco? Seems to me the majority of players in that CG had a blast (go look at the Active Community Goals thread if you don't believe me). People interacted in some pretty cool ways - waves of huge trade ships and anacondas making the 90-minute trip multiple times to drop cargo for the small-to-medium guys because there are no large landing pads at Hutton and so they could be involved. Wings and single defenders engaging pirates and the usual sprinkling of sociopaths. People who've never made the Hutton Trek, which is considered one of the classic "things to do" in E : D. Code shooting their mouths off; "this CG is illegitimate." Hutton Station Radio. We got up almost to top tier; if the stinkers hadn't been blocking landing pads we probably could have hit it. Oh yeah, and the stooges kept blowing up the Hutton Twitch stream so their bragging about cheats, scripts and so on couldn't be captured to send to FD (although much was captured and sent).

So... how is that a failure? All participants said it was the most fun CG they ever did.

Exactly this, have some rep. People playing their way, creating online content in an emergent and dynamic fashion. I want to join Code when I get back from outer space, A rated Python at the ready

 

[DrugaRunda]

It may fix everything from a philosophical perspective, but do you not get that you are proposing that FD create a brand new, totally different game for a percentage of people who might want it. For blockades and bounty hunting and convoy escorts to work, it would probably need to be a server centric networking architecture, not the P2P that we have now, so yes, a completely new game from the network architecture on up.

And you might bet that the majority of players would move to it, but presumably FD don't share your point of view, and since they actually know who plays in what mode right now, they probably know better.

For me at least, current game without proper client-server architecture would be good enough, as long as it is always on-line. There are issues with P2P, but the main issue is the way the game plays in this combined universe.

I view the whole issue as a relic of no "offline" game fiasco, and in the end we do not get either offline nor a proper on-line mode. At the beginning of the whole thing, I thought that I needed time to decide whether this half-baked mode can work, and it did work during the exploration of game mechanics phase, but now that this is done, for me it kills ED.

It may be in the end, that not providing offline mode, and the way it forced their hand, ends up very costly to FD from an angle they did not expect. Officially they still do not recognize/admit it as an issue.

 

[relayer]

Originally Posted by JuicyFruits

You can't be serious.

Yes, I can - and indeed am.

At least he didn't call you Shirley

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Who needs to, read the mega threads - the number of people moaning "open is a wasteland" - if it's such a "wasteland" then there is no one to interdict you or provide that "risk" you keep harping on about.

Open = wasteland = no risk = no reward

Links in my Sig for you to read it yourself, I assume you know how to use those links to filter posts ?

I think the game is more evidence of what is going on than a mega thread.

 

[-Pv-]

"As soon as I press that Open button I should expect both the good and bad that comes with it."

Yup. As long as you know what you're getting and you have choices, great.
The smaller the group who feels they have no place in the game the better. No game will ever satisfy everyone.
I'm willing to put up with the present obstacles to my style of play because so much of the game is just flat out worth it and I've only scratched the surface.
-Pv-

 

[Mouse]

Well you said people left the game. Proving they were never forced to do any of this. I think you are expecting the phrase "play your way" to mean more than the scope of what was actually promised. So no, no one has forced you.

Again you looking at it from a physical point of view.. " to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something: Example: to force a suspect to confess." I am not expecting the phrase "play your way" to mean more than the scope of what was promised. You buy the game..you want to play with others but not in physical combat.. unless you create or are lucky enough to find and join a group you are not given that option.. it is either solo or Open with PVP .. so if you want to play.. you are "FORCED" to choose.

"Yes I am because of the actions of others. I could have sworn you were wanting more rewards or something for open, if I mistook someone else's post for your then I apologize "

Not more rewards for open. I said I would like to see more Open events, like CQC competitions and thoseNVIDIA ones. I was fine with them

So that is why you thought erroneously that Open was the proper way to play?

"So there is no correlation between certain behaviors causing people to leave Eve and those SAME behaviors causing people to leave Open. I guess that repeating patterns are no longer an indicator of an issue.
"

I have no idea, it seems like a very complex issue. There are so many factors in play I could not say the correlation was definitive.

So instead you throw out the known correlation and search instead for other reasons instead.

"Your "definition" did not mention adding to existing.. it just was adding to.. so not wrong.. keep trying"

Look, I think you are making a bit much of this point I will clarify one more time, I would like to see a "Trigger Warning" next to the Open Play Tab, and by that I mean "a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc. alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material.". That should put it to rest - Cannot be any more clear. I am in favor of that. I am not in favor of Open PvE, but you claimed I "Voted against trigger warnings", that made no sense to me.

you are the one who keeps going back and trying to make a point where none was to begin with. It was at rest but you keep pulling it back up and claiming no no no.. it means this instead and your invalid. I offered trigger warnings like you wanted.. at no point was it said "only on these specifically" so you object and keep bring it up because you don't want it to mean that.. but of course since I am replkying to you .. I'm the one making a bit to much of it.

"I'm not the one claiming other's observations are irrelevant.. you are. "

At no point have I done that. Please can you find a quote of mine where I claim someones observations are "irrelevant". I have questioned definitions of words, but that is all. Sorry if you felt I was doing this, I do not mean to cause any offence with my opinions

Go back up and read where you said that everyone who brought up a different game was trying to derail the conversation, even though in the way they were brought up they were pertinent to the conversation.. but nope.. to you they were irrelevant because you talk about ED only.

- - - Updated - - -



Now that is some offensive stuff - but I don;t think this is coming from "The Open Advocates Camp", just an observation.

It was coming from the Open ONLY advocates.. those who wanted solo and private shut down and everyne forced into Open ... because they needed more targets after running everyone away.

 

[JuicyFruits]

For me at least, current game without proper client-server architecture would be good enough, as long as it is always on-line. There are issues with P2P, but the main issue is the way the game plays in this combined universe.

I view the whole issue as a relic of no "offline" game fiasco, and in the end we do not get either offline nor a proper on-line mode. At the beginning of the whole thing, I thought that I needed time to decide whether this half-baked mode can work, and it did work during the exploration of game mechanics phase, but now that this is done, for me it kills ED.

It may be in the end, that not providing offline mode, and the way it forced their hand, ends up very costly to FD from an angle they did not expect. Officially they still do not recognize/admit it as an issue.

I agree with you.

The game is fun. It works, on a basic level. But its not the "living" galaxy I envisioned, partly because of the modes.