Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[DarkWalker]

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.

Very subjective. Being forced to play in the same instance as certain people would completely ruin the game for some, for example.

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

Given that fun is subjective, the different preferences people hold have all to do with it. For example, I consider any game or game mode where I can be attacked without my explicit consent to be utter crap, not worth even the download, regardless of anything else the game might offer. I'm fairly sure your preferences lie somewhere else.

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.

And how would you do the separate BGs?

With a single pilot that can jump between them? That would enable players to play arbitrage, profiting from any differences in the BGs, which would be one heck of an exploit and would in the end push the different BGs together anyway.

With different saves for the different BGs? That would bring every disadvantage of mode locking and separate saves to bear.

What would you do about people with a bad enough connection that they would lag the whole instance? Force them into the instance anyway and ruin the experience for everyone? The current matchmaking system, for the most part, merely doesn't match those players with anyone else, which means that while their connection is bad they can't be interdicted or otherwise blocked even when playing in Open. Forcing your connection to behave like that can (literally) be done by a 5-years old kid, which means any player can currently force Open to behave like Solo even without the help of firewalls or double-NAT.

But, of course, I don't see a single positive in separating the BGs in order to allow some kind of forced Open mode to have its own segregated BG, given that I see the kind of confrontational gameplay you want as purely detrimental to the game.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Cash incentives are, and have always been, a mere marketing stunt. There will be, what, half a dozen prizes for an active player base that seems to number in the hundreds of thousands?

 

[Dogoncrook]

And I'm talking about CGs that affect month long story arcs. These events - if made by FD - are part of the story.

The cerberus plague was such a story arc. The Emperor's Dawn is such a story arc. There have been quite a few CGs that affected the Empire/Emperor story arc. It's not one CG that decides the outcome, it's a series of events/CGs that all influence the story.

Whether or not there is a plague somewhere isn't really the story arc unless it ties into the powers and characters, one universe could have the plague the other not and it doesn't really effect the story. And I haven't seen any evidence the cg's do effect the main plot of the story. We can't discover who killed someone, we can't prevent a power shift, we can't choose who is elected, fd can write around anything we do.

 

[Seonid]

fd can write around anything we do.

They could do, but in many cases they have chosen not too. Big difference.

 

[Dogoncrook]

They could do, but in many cases they have chosen not too. Big difference.

That's why I asked, can you give me an example of how the players effected the chosen leader of the empire?

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I have no idea how that relates to what I said, but let's say they add a seperate locked in PvP mode is that really a big deal?

Xbox *cough cough* Gosh I really must get that cough looked at.

Yes, because it would mean reduce... Wait. Am I back here again? Nuts. Bye!!!

 

[Jockey79]

fd can write around anything we do.

They could do, but in many cases they have chosen not too. Big difference.

This is the whole point for the BGS. FD do not know what the players will or will not support - but if you follow Galnet and interviews of FD staff - the players have all ready done stuff FD were not expecting and they followed it adjusting the story as needed.

I shall look for the video................

 

[Roybe]

Whether or not there is a plague somewhere isn't really the story arc unless it ties into the powers and characters, one universe could have the plague the other not and it doesn't really effect the story. And I haven't seen any evidence the cg's do effect the main plot of the story. We can't discover who killed someone, we can't prevent a power shift, we can't choose who is elected, fd can write around anything we do.

The problem with the story is we do not know all the outcomes.

Nor do we know how the story trees are written.

Maybe by stopping the plague we caused the attack on the Emperor...because if the plague CG had not succeeded...the plot would have gone in a different direction..which could have allowed the Emperor to live.

The same with the mixed results with the weapons and heki tea...without us knowing the state of all 4 of the possible outcomes we only see the one story.

This is a problem that a lot of story driven games have...they have to tip their hand to the outcomes so that people feel they made a choice...without it...you get these types of problems.

So basically, we either have to believe we made a choice without proof...or we believe our actions have no meaning. <shrug> Believe what you like.

 

[Dogoncrook]

This is the whole point for the BGS. FD do not know what the players will or will not support - but if you follow Galnet and interviews of FD staff - the players have all ready done stuff FD were not expecting and they followed it adjusting the story as needed.

I shall look for the video................

I mean I get that, but what I'm saying is you can't eliminate the empire even if everyone sided with the feds exclusively and worked towards it. If they decide x will be president then he or she will be. There wouldn't be a widely divergent story, just a couple of different events along the way. They could change that, and I would welcome that, I was just curious if I missed something, I don't follow it that closely.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with the story is we do not know all the outcomes.

Nor do we know how the story trees are written.

Maybe by stopping the plague we caused the attack on the Emperor...because if the plague CG had not succeeded...the plot would have gone in a different direction..which could have allowed the Emperor to live.

The same with the mixed results with the weapons and heki tea...without us knowing the state of all 4 of the possible outcomes we only see the one story.

This is a problem that a lot of story driven games have...they have to tip their hand to the outcomes so that people feel they made a choice...without it...you get these types of problems.

So basically, we either have to believe we made a choice without proof...or we believe our actions have no meaning. <shrug> Believe what you like.

Well if they said our actions would or could have major influences then yeah, but I haven't seen any indication that it's possible. It would be kinda silly to use our actions as input and not tell us. And why not make cg's that allow us to vote in some manner?

 

[Tuub t Tute]

If a CG succeeds, players have voted one way, if it fails, the vote is the other way. PP is meshed with the BGS, so in simple terms, if an Imperial election comes up, the Imp faction with the most influence gets the vote, so ALD won.
-
My personal opinion is it doesn't need to get any more Machiavellian than that. It is a bit like playing the Warlock of Firetop Mountain book.

 

[Roybe]

I mean I get that, but what I'm saying is you can't eliminate the empire even if everyone sided with the feds exclusively and worked towards it. If they decide x will be president then he or she will be. There wouldn't be a widely divergent story, just a couple of different events along the way. They could change that, and I would welcome that, I was just curious if I missed something, I don't follow it that closely.

- - - Updated - - -



Well if they said our actions would or could have major influences then yeah, but I haven't seen any indication that it's possible. It would be kinda silly to use our actions as input and not tell us. And why not make cg's that allow us to vote in some manner?

That is the problem isn't it? They tell us we have major influence...and we see a story evolve...many times with explanations that x occurred within a CG...but we do not know what the outcome would be without player input.

So you understand...you are voting! Every time you make a delivery or kill an NPC in a CG.

In a competing goal X vs Y you know who wins and loses. That is a result for the storyline.

In goals such as deliver x tea and y weapons...the success or failure can be mixed...and the story moves in the direction of the various successes and failures.

Unfortuately...we are not privy to all the story outcomes...only the ones we affect. In this game, I am uncertain how the devs could set this up..so that we could know what all the outcomes could be...without knowing them ahead of time.

I think a lot of players do not want to know 4 choices ahead and move towards one. The devs seem to want us to choose our commitment level as we would play without knowing what the outcomes would be.

Should we deliver weapons to a sinister group? Drugs? That's the choice you have to make, without knowing the outcome ahead of time.

More interesting reason for choice...very short on showing the affect the players have.

 

[Dogoncrook]

That is the problem isn't it? They tell us we have major influence...and we see a story evolve...many times with explanations that x occurred within a CG...but we do not know what the outcome would be without player input.

So you understand...you are voting! Every time you make a delivery or kill an NPC in a CG.

In a competing goal X vs Y you know who wins and loses. That is a result for the storyline.

In goals such as deliver x tea and y weapons...the success or failure can be mixed...and the story moves in the direction of the various successes and failures.

Unfortuately...we are not privy to all the story outcomes...only the ones we affect. In this game, I am uncertain how the devs could set this up..so that we could know what all the outcomes could be...without knowing them ahead of time.

I think a lot of players do not want to know 4 choices ahead and move towards one. The devs seem to want us to choose our commitment level as we would play without knowing what the outcomes would be.

Should we deliver weapons to a sinister group? Drugs? That's the choice you have to make, without knowing the outcome ahead of time.

More interesting reason for choice...very short on showing the affect the players have.

They don't have to spell out the choices just that we can have an impact. I doubt they would allow say the alliance to be crushed no matter what we do. We certainly didn't vote to have the emperor assassinated or influence that. As I said I just haven't seen any evidence this is so. You can believe what you want, and frankly I don't care either way, I'm just asking if there are any cases where it happened. I'm aware they play with the story a bit, but I also wouldn't say we really have any control. Sirius lost their home system then got a massive pp faction.

 

[Grenian]

I mostly play in Solo because I prefer the feel of a single player game with stats that are shared by the community. I very much dislike how almost all games worth playing these days are Multiplayer. I'm rather solitary and don't feel like I should have to play with a group of people just to have content and things to do. It's nice to have that option and I do hit up Open from time to time but I deal with people all day at work, the kids at home, the wife, etc. Most of the time I just wanna log on and do some stuff by myself without having to log into TS3 and join some big raid with some Elitists to have a decent gaming experience-obviously that's not a comment toward ED but "other" MMOs. Another reason is if I'm gaming and the kids or the wife needs something I can simply save/logout and not have to worry about the group I left behind. Multiplayer games are fine for people who have the time to dedicate to them, but us 'casual' gamers don't really benefit a lot from a group experience all the time.

Edit: Also... if FD combined the modes or did away with Solo I would probably stop playing ED... I believe there are others who feel this way too.

 

[relayer]

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.

Alright, this is a question I have asked before and never get a concrete answer to:

How exactly, in your own words/thoughts, would it lead to more interesting gameplay?
And how, in your own words, would it be more fun?

I'm not <sarc> - I'm honestly asking you. Spell it out for me. I ask because I know that a lot of what I do in E: D would bore the spit out of most people, and yet I have great fun playing the game.

 

[relayer]

Ah, we have reached this subroutine in the great program.

See, it's metagaming the metagame!
C'est incroyable!
So chic; tres jolie!

*a smattering of polite, glove-muffled clapping*

 

[Khelder]

Alright, this is a question I have asked before and never get a concrete answer to:

How exactly, in your own words/thoughts, would it lead to more interesting gameplay?
And how, in your own words, would it be more fun?

I'm not <sarc> - I'm honestly asking you. Spell it out for me. I ask because I know that a lot of what I do in E: D would bore the spit out of most people, and yet I have great fun playing the game.

I can't answer for Dogoncrook, but I have some thoughts.

First, let me say that I agree that different things interest different people. No one thing is going to be acceptable to everyone. Second, there are so many variants to the mode situation. For purposes of this post, let's say that we are just talking about an Open (PvP-allowed) mode with its own BGS. Solo/Group may continue to exist. It doesn't really matter for this. Third, instancing/timezones/playtime/wife-killing-zombies/whatever doesn't matter. They are acceptable 'issues' that everyone is faced with and if there are enough players participating over various times, should work out in the end anyway.

One of the things that I see is that certain actions in the game become unnecessary because of mode switching. You could still do these things for something to do, but there is no real need. Let me attempt to explain.

Ganking/griefing/picking on newbies/etc - There could be a serious problem with cashed up pilots (I'm being nice - interchange this with whatever derogatory name you choose) are picking on new pilots in a particular system. Newbies start crying out in the forums saying, "This really sucks! I'm just getting killed all the time." Now, a number of other players could start to organise themselves and attempt to assist with the problem. Form a posse and dispense some justice to those doing the harassing. They could... or they could just reply in the forums, "Just go to Solo until you've built yourself up a bit."

Blockade of CG - A certain group might suggest that a CG event should be blockaded because "reasons". Some players from that group will go along because they want the action or whatever. Some might say to themselves, "I like the 'reasons', but won't people just go to Solo?", and decide it's not really worth it.

Traders/explorers - A trader or an explorer might want to hire some muscle as a bit of protection. This (in my opinion) would be a great feature of the game but it seems the payment mechanics don't really make it all that worthwhile. That trader or explorer may take the time to come up with some great suggestions and petition FD for improvements... or they could just fly in Solo instead.

They're just a couple of things I could think of off the top of my head. It's certainly nothing the game can't live without. But there would seem to be some things (generally PvP-related) that would only really come into existence if there was a great need for them. But because a lot of the situations can be alleviated or avoided with Solo, the need would never really build to a point where pilots would take it upon themselves to do something.

I also don't know whether "fun" is the right word for it. Some might certainly find it "fun". It would add a little more variety though. And, as always, I still don't think that these potential benefits outweigh the downside to changing the mode situation.

 

[relayer]

I can't answer for Dogoncrook, but I have some thoughts.

OK, I picked a few points out from this post I'd like to address. Thanks for your ideas/comments; I'd really like a reply from the person I asked the question of though.

<snip>

One of the things that I see is that certain actions in the game become unnecessary because of mode switching. You could still do these things for something to do, but there is no real need.

I'm sure you know that being a sociopath/mindless killer is exactly a need situation - even when it's not called for, the sociopath will choose anti-social, damaging strategies exactly because that is what a sociopath is. You aren't going to solve that problem with game mechanics, excepting the way FD have already done it with the modes and allowing us to play as we choose with whom we choose.

But because a lot of the situations can be alleviated or avoided with Solo, the need would never really build to a point where pilots would take it upon themselves to do something.

Supposedly, I hear that going ~100ly out in the Bubble you'll see no one. I also know that instancing won't let things work that easily and that is a core structural component of the game. At present, it's very hard to get more than 2 wings in an instance, and it is also problemmatic within that instance. Add to that the other arguments presented many times in this threadzilla about mutual ping times, times of play, network congestion and the rest, and what you are asking for just doesn't work in this networking model.


I, and many others, have put the question to the "good pirates" over many months: "Why don't you do something about the psychopaths because it's your gameplay they are affecting?" People won't chance being interdic't by anyone & so often do not wait to see if it's a "reasonable"/RP pirate.

The answers range from "hey, we aren't bounty hunters, we are pirates!" to "it doesn't pay enough." I believe I read in the early DDs that MB and others expected players to take justice into their own hands. This has not really happened; everyone is chasing the Big Bux© and can't be bothered; the networking model just doesn't support huge convoys of ships, or they are complaining that there's no fat sheep to prey upon all because they won't police their own ranks.

It isn't my problem, and for that I bless FD everytime I read posts about noob ganking or code or invulnerable ships or... all the detritus that comes with open mode.

 

[DaveB]

See, it's metagaming the metagame!
C'est incroyable!
So chic; tres jolie!

*a smattering of polite, glove-muffled clapping*

+1 pour le français, dans cette langue l'incroyable a un appel, ceci est la raison pour laquelle le français est la langue de l'amour

 

[Khelder]

I'm sure you know that being a sociopath/mindless killer is exactly a need situation - even when it's not called for, the sociopath will choose anti-social, damaging strategies exactly because that is what a sociopath is. You aren't going to solve that problem with game mechanics, excepting the way FD have already done it with the modes and allowing us to play as we choose with whom we choose.

I understand this. The need I was referring to was the need to do something to counter such actions. There are always going to be annoying people out there. I like the idea of these being policed somewhat through player actions (I think that was meant to be FDs idea too). But many people will not go out of their way (take themselves away from their trading/whatever) to support a cause like that unless the need builds up to a level where they feel compelled to assist. With the pressure release of Solo, that need never really builds to such levels.

I also know that instancing won't let things work that easily and that is a core structural component of the game. At present, it's very hard to get more than 2 wings in an instance, and it is also problemmatic within that instance. Add to that the other arguments presented many times in this threadzilla about mutual ping times, times of play, network congestion and the rest, and what you are asking for just doesn't work in this networking model.

I mentioned in my post that I don't see instancing, etc being a problem. And I don't. You can't take the player-action-must-be-100%-successful approach. Think of a war (a real one). Very rarely do to opposing sides confront each other on the same battlefield. There are battles going on for different territories all over the place. These battles may take place at different times and with only a small subset of the overall force available to the sides. You can't go into a war and say, "If this one team of commandos can't face every opponent at the same time there's no point fighting." It just doesn't work that way. All of the little battles have an effect and they all come together to eventually (sometimes) result in an outcome.

I, and many others, have put the question to the "good pirates" over many months: "Why don't you do something about the psychopaths because it's your gameplay they are affecting?" People won't chance being interdic't by anyone & so often do not wait to see if it's a "reasonable"/RP pirate.

The answers range from "hey, we aren't bounty hunters, we are pirates!" to "it doesn't pay enough." I believe I read in the early DDs that MB and others expected players to take justice into their own hands. This has not really happened; everyone is chasing the Big Bux© and can't be bothered; the networking model just doesn't support huge convoys of ships, or they are complaining that there's no fat sheep to prey upon all because they won't police their own ranks.

It isn't my problem, and for that I bless FD everytime I read posts about noob ganking or code or invulnerable ships or... all the detritus that comes with open mode.

A bit of everything in there. I actually find it odd that people complain about aggressiveness from player pirates. I have generally found the NPC pirates to be much less tolerant. I've actually considered raising a bug report about it because recently I normally don't have enough time remember what binding I assigned to cargo release before the NPC tells me I've chosen death. So I just end up either fighting or running. And I have found myself in some pretty scary NPC situations too.

I did have a really evil thought a while back. It would have been a great way to balance the modes.

NPCs are getting smarter. So soon we may not notice a huge skill/threat difference between them and average players. All we need now is for FD to add some NPCs who will ram newbies in no fire zones, shoot at docked ships on outposts, etc. Just add the undesirable player activity to Solo by way of NPC conduct and everything is fine.

Ok. Please don't take that last paragraph seriously. I'm joking.

 

[Dogoncrook]

OK, I picked a few points out from this post I'd like to address. Thanks for your ideas/comments; I'd really like a reply from the person I asked the question of though.

<snip>



I'm sure you know that being a sociopath/mindless killer is exactly a need situation - even when it's not called for, the sociopath will choose anti-social, damaging strategies exactly because that is what a sociopath is. You aren't going to solve that problem with game mechanics, excepting the way FD have already done it with the modes and allowing us to play as we choose with whom we choose.




Supposedly, I hear that going ~100ly out in the Bubble you'll see no one. I also know that instancing won't let things work that easily and that is a core structural component of the game. At present, it's very hard to get more than 2 wings in an instance, and it is also problemmatic within that instance. Add to that the other arguments presented many times in this threadzilla about mutual ping times, times of play, network congestion and the rest, and what you are asking for just doesn't work in this networking model.


I, and many others, have put the question to the "good pirates" over many months: "Why don't you do something about the psychopaths because it's your gameplay they are affecting?" People won't chance being interdic't by anyone & so often do not wait to see if it's a "reasonable"/RP pirate.

The answers range from "hey, we aren't bounty hunters, we are pirates!" to "it doesn't pay enough." I believe I read in the early DDs that MB and others expected players to take justice into their own hands. This has not really happened; everyone is chasing the Big Bux© and can't be bothered; the networking model just doesn't support huge convoys of ships, or they are complaining that there's no fat sheep to prey upon all because they won't police their own ranks.

It isn't my problem, and for that I bless FD everytime I read posts about noob ganking or code or invulnerable ships or... all the detritus that comes with open mode.

I'm not sure you are thinking of the right person, I don't recall being asked, but I'd echo a lot of what khelder said.

I also forgot about ironman and the plan that choosing it locked you in until you died, and I think that addresses a lot of those points. It's not much but at that point you have bought in so to speak so players become a bit more invested. It's kinda like dayz around the beaches no one is invested yet, but inland there is far more caution besides the bases. For every "if there were consequences gankers wouldn't play that way, it's unrealistic, they don't take it seriously etc" post I see, I can't help but thinking, well realistically a trader would have more sense than to putter into a high traffick area with no shields and unprotected thinking, "hey I've got insurance to cover this". Without iron man, you won't see the effect as much, but knowing you have to watch it that much more changes behavior to a degree. Even if you never actually face the risk, knowing it's there changes the way the game plays out a bit. I have no idea whether or not it would actually change in that way, but it's my gut feeling.

The instancing issues would still be there, but even with less people in the mode, if say code decides to take shifts and guard something 24 hrs. I would imagine it would actually have an effect. Maybe it wouldn't but if it did I feel player created content would start to become more prevalent. The lugh saga would have been a richer experience in a mode like this. As it stands war doesn't exist in this universe. If you want to overthrow a a government you trade with it's enemy, it's all economic warfare. I understand that we won't have huge battles like eve, but if there is any possible way to violently undermine the traders it becomes more interesting, even if it's still at the core economic warfare. As it stands killing traders doesn't make a dent and never will, I doubt in an open only mode it would all that much, but if it can tip the scales to have traders and pirates or mercs, it would become more exciting to someone like me. If you can't go to solo to avoid a blockade or whatever the threat alone may very well run people off.

Plus I think adding to the game with actual tools for bounty hunters etc. would get a push. Maybe that needs to be fleshed out first.

I could go on and on, I'm not sure how much of it is viable, or if it's worth it. I do however feel by kicking these ideas around in a friendly manner, even if we don't agree, there's a chance that something shakes out we can all agree on, or is at least benign to the opposing modes camp, and get more content. Because I don't think there are that many people, devs included, who feel any part of the game is fully fleshed out.

Edit: I play self imposed ironman in open so it does bias my views a bit.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Well, after some run ins with Elite NPCs, i can now say thay NPCs are as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than a majority of players.

Yeah, the harmless and lower ranked ones are still easy most of the time. But hellfire, those Elite ones can be well nasty. I haven't even gone into a HAZRES after hearing about how they are all turreted, chaff using, SCB spamming crazies.

Yeah, i'm sure the dedicated PvPer is still far superior to them, but that's not an argument for flying in the same mode as such people, if anything its an argument against, since getting into PvP with such skilled pillots is a guaranteed loss anyway. Competition is no fun when you are hopelessly outclassed.

What I can say, from my opinion, is that arguments that solo is easy mode just went out of the window with 1.4.