Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jockey79]

If fd has answered then what are any of you doing here?

Because some don't use the forum search feature and create threads on their unique and new idea of;

1) Lock the modes
2) Remove the modes
3) Give bonuses to one mode
4) Nerf other modes but the one they like
5) New BGS without modes

And to be frank, the mods needed somewhere to dump these new and never seen before ideas that have not been talked about for the past 3 years at all.

This thread, is the bin (garbage can) for these "new" ideas that none of us were smart enough to think of last year, or the year before that or when the Kickstarter campaign started.

 

[DarkWalker]

And I guess it's really not about fairness, it would just be more interesting and fun.

Which is a very strong argument for never pushing players into activities they don't like. Such as, for many players, PvP.

Forcing, BTW, includes giving extra, extraneous incentives for that activity the player dislikes. A prime example of which would be giving extra bonuses for playing in Open. Which, in any case, would be a dumb move because it's fairly easy to trick the matchmaking system to never group a player with anyone else while still playing in Open.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Because some don't use the forum search feature and create threads on their unique and new idea of;

1) Lock the modes
2) Remove the modes
3) Give bonuses to one mode
4) Nerf other modes but the one they like
5) New BGS without modes

And to be frank, the mods needed somewhere to dump these new and never seen before ideas that have not been talked about for the past 3 years at all.

This thread, is the bin (garbage can) for these "new" ideas that none of us were smart enough to think of last year, or the year before that or when the Kickstarter campaign started.

then what are you doing here?

- - - Updated - - -

Which is a very strong argument for never pushing players into activities they don't like. Such as, for many players, PvP.

Forcing, BTW, includes giving extra, extraneous incentives for that activity the player dislikes. A prime example of which would be giving extra bonuses for playing in Open. Which, in any case, would be a dumb move because it's fairly easy to trick the matchmaking system to never group a player with anyone else while still playing in Open.

Then the devs "forced" players by offering cash incentives? The line has already been crossed by your definition.

 

[relayer]

It would be more fair because people can't turn invisible and undermine your work.

Think of it as a Romulan Cloaking Device. You can't see any of the Xboxers. You can't see people a hundred or so Ls away. You can't even see players exactly where you are because of ping times, hours of play & etc. So you can't directly counter them even in Open.

You have exactly the same options as everyone else regarding fortifying and undermining. The fact that you do not wish to play that way, and want the game to change because of how you feel about how it should work it doesn't make it unfair. It's your choice.

 

[Cody]

Why should we disbelieve what Frontier themselves have said?

<grins> Don't tempt me!

 

[ianw]

How does advertising make something fair? It would be more fair because people can't turn invisible and undermine your work. And I guess it's really not about fairness, it would just be more interesting and fun. It doesn't hurt solo players in any way.

But people can "turn invisible" and undermine your "work" anyway - that's how instancing works.

Why is that okay but an active choice to use a different mode not okay?

Or - to put it another way - why are you so bothered about "fixing" one - when the other will continue anyway because instancing and x box?

 

[Phosphora]

In the context of whether or not a seperate bgs is fair interesting or fun it most certainly is.

People have differing personalities. What is interesting or fun to you may be boring and tedious to others. You might prefer separate bgs, others may not.

 

[Dogoncrook]

But people can "turn invisible" and undermine your "work" anyway - that's how instancing works.

Why is that okay but an active choice to use a different mode not okay?

Or - to put it another way - why are you so bothered about "fixing" one - when the other will continue anyway because instancing and x box?

First off, it doesn't bother me. I get that it would cost more money and isn't likely, but you are not going to convince me that it wouldn't be more fun or lead to more interesting gameplay just because it isn't perfect.

- - - Updated - - -

People have differing personalities. What is interesting or fun to you may be boring and tedious to others. You might prefer separate bgs, others may not.

That doesn't have any relevance to what we were talking about.

 

[Seonid]

but you are not going to convince me that it wouldn't be more fun or lead to more interesting gameplay just because it isn't perfect.

Nobody needs to convince you, the game designers made their decision long ago and are unlikely to change it regardless of what you say. Simply accept that and enjoy the game.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Think of it as a Romulan Cloaking Device. You can't see any of the Xboxers. You can't see people a hundred or so Ls away. You can't even see players exactly where you are because of ping times, hours of play & etc. So you can't directly counter them even in Open.

You have exactly the same options as everyone else regarding fortifying and undermining. The fact that you do not wish to play that way, and want the game to change because of how you feel about how it should work it doesn't make it unfair. It's your choice.

You are right that's why I corrected myself and said it isn't so much a matter of fairness. And is it really doing any harm to express what I want, or how I would rather it be? Is that any skin off your back?

 

[ianw]

First off, it doesn't bother me. I get that it would cost more money and isn't likely, but you are not going to convince me that it wouldn't be more fun or lead to more interesting gameplay just because it isn't perfect.

Take Hutton as example. We all were in open by choice. I made 14 runs - that's 14 x 90 minutes - and I didn't see "more fun" or more "interesting gameplay" beacuse all the more fun and more interesting opposing gameplayers were being more fun and interesting in other instances.

That's just how the game is - like or not.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Nobody needs to convince you, the game designers made their decision long ago and are unlikely to change it regardless of what you say. Simply accept that and enjoy the game.

Who said I didn't accept the game as it is?

 

[Robert Maynard]

First off, it doesn't bother me. I get that it would cost more money and isn't likely, but you are not going to convince me that it wouldn't be more fun or lead to more interesting gameplay just because it isn't perfect.

While it may be "more fun or lead to more interesting gameplay" for some players it equally may not for others.

Some players use the mode mobility feature depending on where they are connecting to the game from. Locking a commander to one mode would mean that they may not be able to play at all in places where they have a connection that can't handle Open (but handles Solo perfectly well).

Some players may prefer Open but have friends that don't - locking the commander to one mode would mean that the players who like Open would not be able to switch to a Private Group to play with their friends.

 

[Seonid]

Who said I didn't accept the game as it is?

Your repeated and vocal complaints, for one. BRB, having to truck my Imperial Freagle 37 jumps to home from where I "left" it.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Take Hutton as example. We all were in open by choice. I made 14 runs - that's 14 x 90 minutes - and I didn't see "more fun" or more "interesting gameplay" beacuse all the more fun and more interesting opposing gameplayers were being more fun and interesting in other instances.

That's just how the game is - like or not.

Just makes it more likely that what you do has an effect. And cost aside, what is the downside?

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Who said I didn't accept the game as it is?

This isn't an argument, it's just a series of contradictory statements!

 

[Dogoncrook]

Your repeated and vocal complaints, for one. BRB, having to truck my Imperial Freagle 37 jumps to home from where I "left" it.

Quote one, and the comment it was responding to.

 

[ianw]

Just makes it more likely that what you do has an effect. And cost aside, what is the downside?

Well I would say the downside for someone who doesn't want their contribution reduced or doesn't want to be forced into a mode they don't want to play is;

"What difference does it make - it isn't fair or balanced in any way so why should my input/game be affected just to appease someone who is upset about it?"

Why can't you just accept that other people want something different than you want - and that logically what you want makes no sense to the overall outcome - it won't fix anything other than make you feel better?

 

[Phosphora]

First off, it doesn't bother me. I get that it would cost more money and isn't likely, but you are not going to convince me that it wouldn't be more fun or lead to more interesting gameplay just because it isn't perfect.

That doesn't have any relevance to what we were talking about.

Diversity is always relevant. Frontier will seek to maximise revenue by catering to differing types of people. What is fun to you may bore other people.

Cheers, Phos

 

[Dogoncrook]

While it may be "more fun or lead to more interesting gameplay" for some players it equally may not for others.

Some players use the mode mobility feature depending on where they are connecting to the game from. Locking a commander to one mode would mean that they may not be able to play at all in places where they have a connection that can't handle Open (but handles Solo perfectly well).

Some players may prefer Open but have friends that don't - locking the commander to one mode would mean that the players who like Open would not be able to switch to a Private Group to play with their friends.

I'm not talking about locking anyone in, unless there were multiple cmdr slots that would suck. But I wouldn't be opposed to it if there were. I was simply talking about seperate world's or bgs for each mode. Which has downsides for sure. I just don't think the negatives are that big of a deal.