Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jockey79]

I'm not the one who litterally made up whole clothe that I was name calling and insulting a mod.

erm..

And Robert if you had the courage of your convictions the right thing to do would be....

I call that a petty insulting, for a couple of reasons;

1) It is not up to Robert what happens to the megathreads - it's up to the Community Manager.
2) You're insinuating he is a coward as he does not have the "courage" to do what you want.
3) You're putting it all on 1 Moderator - despite Yaffle, TJ and Ian also post here (just to name a few off the top of my head).

The megathreads were created as the final resting grounds for those who refuse to understand or failed to read up, the game was designed around having the modes and mode switching.
And as some folks won't let the topic go, the forums were becoming a mess - dumping them all in to one thread keeps the rest of the forum tidy.

 

[Roybe]

Oh darn...things just got interesting! <munch munch> Anyone want some Popcorn?

 

[Mouse]

You act like different people posting different things makes the issue a hypocritical or a logical fallacy. It isn't they are simply different people who want different things.

And you can want something they have said they won't give, and there shouldn't be an issue expressing that.

And then you go and generalise the debate in an entirely ridiculous way even though people like myself have explained why there are benifits. Which I'll remind you, you asked for, and then proceeded to flat out say you were going to ignore based on the petty argument that the post wasn't directly addressed to you. Your not defending anything, your twisting people's words, shoving words in people's mouths and declaring yourselves the winners because they are hypocritical. It's stunning really. And then to say it's all so we can have soft targets like you can read their minds. I mean I've told you quite clearly I can see the advantages and I don't even PvP in open.

Its not what you say it's that the methods are dishonest.

Actually I agree with you, the methods used by Open only advocates are dishonest.

For one.. people posting Open is empty and needs incentives, does counter other's arguments that Open is such a huge risk and deserves rewards over other modes. And sometimes it is the same people arguing both sides, it isn't always "different people wanting different things" as you assert. Even when it is different people those arguments do show the hypocrisy of each other.. both are fallacy arguments that are used in attempts to gain higher payouts and bounties for missions, goods, and such Open over the other mods.. it is all horse hockey.

Benefits that only benefit one mode of play are not benefits at all. As for benefits I have asked for, I don't remember asking for any benefits. Only thing I have asked for is a PVE mode.. that is not a benefit, it is the knowledge that such a large PVE group as Mobius is all hinged on one thing... Mobius himself. Anything happens or if he decides to leave the game..everyone in Mobius has to find or make another group. A PVE mode means Mobius doesn't have to take everything on himself, and people looking for social PVE would be able to find it without jumping through hoops or going solo because they don't know groups like Mobius exist.

I have never made the petty argument that a post wasn't directly addressed to me.. I think you have me confused with someone on the open only side. I have been jumped on by some because I replied to posts that were not supposedly directed at me. As for twisting people's words, shoving words in people's mouths or declaring myself a winner.. again.. you're thinking of someone else. I as many other know.. this is a non winnable situation, all we can do is everytime someone brings up the same arguments again and again and again, is to reply to them. I would love something new, sometimes people do post new and fresh ideas, and everyone discusses it.. than it fades or someone starts another rehash thread that gets pulled into here and everything recycles again.

I don't have to read anyone's mind, and wouldn't want too. When you have actually read the all the arguments in the megathreads you see a trend.. which I and others have given voice too.. soft targets. Many Open advocates voice out against CQC.. why? Because it is an even playing field.. that isn't what they wanted at all.. All the waxing and waning of many centers on there are not enough non PVPers in open for them to shoot at. And if you notice.. I did not say Buck said this or even implied this.. I quoted Buck to show you why Jockey, Robert, Myself and others keeping having to say the same things over and over again..

 

[Khelder]

So, let's see, they can't drop Solo because:

- It would render null the game's current PEGI-7 rating, landing Frontier in trouble with the law on multiple fronts, including for having sold to children a product that is not appropriate for them.
- It would remove a feature widely advertised. Sony is still fighting off a class action lawsuit over having dropped the Linux functionality from the PS3, a secondary feature used by a tiny part of the user base at best; the modes, and mode changing, are a far more central and widely advertised feature in the context of ED.
- It is necessary for fulfilling other promises, such as being able to play with minimal bandwidth on a very bad connection, a situation where Open or Group modes simply aren't feasible.

And they shouldn't drop Solo because:

- Many players prefer Solo.
- Many of the players that prefer other modes nevertheless enjoy being able to change to Solo whenever they want.
- Besides the legal angle, there is a trust issue involved in dropping features. No dev wants to be known for dropping features after launch.
- Most games that make radical changes after launch, removing or changing features the current player base got to enjoy, fare badly afterwards.
- Most MMO players tend to be soloers; this is not a new thing, BTW.
- Given the network architecture Frontier has chosen, dropping Solo would be innocuous anyway, as players can block others (even selectively so) and turn Open into a fake Solo or Group mode.
- Being forced to engage with players that fall into Bartle's Killer archetype tends to make players of every other archetype leave the game, as research into virtual worlds and its players has shown over a decade ago. Solo allows the players that would leave the game over that a way to still stay in the game.

Among other things. I'm sure I've forgotten a few.

Even though Dogoncrook was just poking, this kind of response is a much better one. I might not necessarily agree with all of your points, but at least if would give someone something to think about. Someone who just got it into their heads that "Solo is bad" and decided to blurt it out could read this and start putting some thought into their currently held view.

On another point, I'm really curious to see what happens with this particular nugget:

Given the network architecture Frontier has chosen, dropping Solo would be innocuous anyway, as players can block others (even selectively so) and turn Open into a fake Solo or Group mode.

It looks very much like FD has moved to a server-relay P2P model (finally!). At least it is optional in the settings from the recent patch. I don't know how this plays out with interaction with those who disable this feature. But it certainly looks like it could be the end to selective engagement by network filtering.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh darn...things just got interesting! <munch munch> Anyone want some Popcorn?

I've got to head off to a meeting. Keep some warm for me.

 

[Jockey79]

It looks very much like FD has moved to a server-relay P2P model (finally!). At least it is optional in the settings from the recent patch.

Erm, eh?

I've not seen any update to change/ tweak/ update the networking model - where have you seen this?
(Better news would be sever / client - I may be able to get all my friends in 1 instance for a change, though doubt that will ever happen)

 

[DarkWalker]

On another point, I'm really curious to see what happens with this particular nugget:

Given the network architecture Frontier has chosen, dropping Solo would be innocuous anyway, as players can block others (even selectively so) and turn Open into a fake Solo or Group mode.

It looks very much like FD has moved to a server-relay P2P model (finally!). At least it is optional in the settings from the recent patch. I don't know how this plays out with interaction with those who disable this feature. But it certainly looks like it could be the end to selective engagement by network filtering.

1. If too many people start using it, the bandwidth requirements of the servers will explode. Meaning larger bills for Frontier, which in turn means the game might become unprofitable earlier. Though, admittedly, this cost might not be meaningful in the future.
2. The result of using it is increased lag due to the extra hops the data will have to make. Only a small amount of extra lag for people that live close to one of Frontier's servers, but increasing with the distance to the closest Frontier server. It's quite possible that, for those that don't live on a continent where Frontier has servers, enabling that option could make the multiplayer nearly unplayable due to lag.
3. Due to the above, if Frontier wants to make that option truly useful, they will need to purchase or rent relay servers across the globe. Again, costs.
4. There are ways around it for players that want to still selectively block others. A simple one would be to add a large amount of latency to the server connection — so the game doesn't attempt to use the relay for you — and then proceed to block or allow other peer to peer connections as usual. The usual server traffic is, after all, not much time-critical.

That option is not there to prevent people from blocking others in Open. It's there to allow those whose Internet provider blocks peer to peer connections to finally see other players while playing in Group or Open. Plus, given that it does have drawbacks, including increased lag when turned on, I doubt it will be made mandatory. And, BTW, the game has been doing something very similar for some time already.

 

[Khelder]

Erm, eh?

I've not seen any update to change/ tweak/ update the networking model - where have you seen this?
(Better news would be sever / client - I may be able to get all my friends in 1 instance for a change, though doubt that will ever happen)

It wasn't documented. There was one comment in the patch thread (I think) from someone asking about it but I don't think it was answered.

After the patch, when EDLaunch resets the AppConfig.xml (and deletes AppConfigLocal.xml - thanks FD ), a new attribute appeared in the Network element called 'RelayViaServer'. It defaulted to on ('1') for me and I have noticed that I no longer have direct connections other than FD servers when I occasionally see fellow pilots.

...
That option is not there to prevent people from blocking others in Open. It's there to allow those whose Internet provider blocks peer to peer connections to finally see other players while playing in Group or Open. Plus, given that it does have drawbacks, including increased lag when turned on, I doubt it will be made mandatory. And, BTW, the game has been doing something very similar for some time already.

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure the game did fall back to that if direct connections kept failing or something. Every time an update occurs and it resets the config to use uPnP I effectively lose everything.

It looks like they've just exposed a 'force' option there. And, yes, it is likely more for people with connection difficulties (blocks). But it's also a nice feature to add a little privacy. The downside, as you mentioned, is the additional transit times for packets. I'd be interested to know how much of a difference it makes though. I've seen other games that force this model.

 

[relayer]

Oh darn...things just got interesting! <munch munch> Anyone want some Popcorn?

Sure! Want some licorice? Or maybe Goobers or Raisinettes? I <3 candy!

 

[Jockey79]

It wasn't documented. There was one comment in the patch thread (I think) from someone asking about it but I don't think it was answered.

After the patch, when EDLaunch resets the AppConfig.xml (and deletes AppConfigLocal.xml - thanks FD ), a new attribute appeared in the Network element called 'RelayViaServer'. It defaulted to on ('1') for me and I have noticed that I no longer have direct connections other than FD servers when I occasionally see fellow pilots.



Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure the game did fall back to that if direct connections kept failing or something. Every time an update occurs and it resets the config to use uPnP I effectively lose everything.

It looks like they've just exposed a 'force' option there. And, yes, it is likely more for people with connection difficulties (blocks). But it's also a nice feature to add a little privacy. The downside, as you mentioned, is the additional transit times for packets. I'd be interested to know how much of a difference it makes though. I've seen other games that force this model.

I'm looking at it right now - thanks for the info, I didn't know that was in there. Plus mine is also set to "1".
This explain the weird issues I've been having since the last update - been having a nightmare playing the game with lag and delays in jumps.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I'm looking at it right now - thanks for the info, I didn't know that was in there. Plus mine is also set to "1".
This explain the weird issues I've been having since the last update - been having a nightmare playing the game with lag and delays in jumps.

interesting...... hopefully someone will do some tests (note I am not volunteering ) to compare with it on or off..... if it makes a difference i will set mine to what ever has least lag. other than the desyncing of wing bonus when 1 member of your wing flies into a planet gravitywell I have not ha any bugs in multiplayer for the longest of time, and see plenty of player CMDRs so I am not sure I get any benefit from the new setting.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Well, actually, how about me! I'm at work, but during my break, between 12 and 1, I have tome to get on-line. We don't have a uPNP environment, so Peer to Peer is not possible. If they have worked out a way to get round that, then it is possible I will be visible... Anyone fancy trying to meet me in Gateway today in Mobius around 12:10 GMT?

 

[Dogoncrook]

Prove it - I want the exact quotes where I've told someone directly they are stupid.
Also, why have you not used the "Report" feature if that is the case?

Forum Rules;



If you feel I've broken the TOS or Forum rules - then click the "Report" button under that post.
Quoting and responding in a baiting / trolling manner is also against the rules.

First of all I didn't say you broke the tos.

"If someone chooses to be willfully stupid however, then they deserve to have their points "shut down" in a blunt manner."

Did you directly say it no, but as I said previously, it's "if you don't agree with me your stupid" you want to play word games knock yourself out, we all know what you meant, and it isn't the only quote I can find, just the most recent.

And to your other post, you say I'm insinuating he is a coward, but here you claim complete innonence for your own insinuations. But par for the course here really you always take the most dramatic stance possible, you simply cannot handle differences of opinion.

"So petty name calling of a mod is not only arrogant but uncalled for"

That's specifically what you said and now I'm the troll? That's a straight up lie. You didn't say I was insinuating, you specifically said I was name calling, and that flat out didn't happen. You just made it up. Shrug.

And the idea that I'm the one taking all of this personal, isn't very logical is it? I don't care about the modes one way or the other, I'm frankly not very invested in this game, or any game really, just kinda shooting it and marveling at the forums. And I've stated that multiple times. (Though you've completely ignored that, because calling you out obviously makes me an open advocate/pirate or some other delusional nonsense.) You on the other hand resort to tactics I rarely see outside of political causes, and admit to an agenda. I mean who are you fooling? It's just a game, but i half expect to get a flyer from you on my car windshield about the plight of the solo player.

"And as some folks won't let the topic go"

Well some of us, such as myself stumbled in here expecting normal conversation about the modes, and to kick around ideas about how either could benifit. Other people have been here since the beginning with walls of evidence posting thousands of posts, I mean of all people to bring up that.. You know as well as anybody nothings going to change so why have you taken it upon yourself to inform everybody they are wrong? I mean yeah that's perfectly within your rights to do, but sheesh man...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I've seen him countless times say if you don't agree with his position it's because you are stupid in one way or another. I mean bravo for posting a lot I guess.

As for people jumping in here and throwing off the discussion, that's basically what kelder was saying, and many posters confirmed, we can't get a word in edgewise because it somehow throws off some imaginary balance of power, and everyone must always be on guard lest someone have the temerity to desire this game was different than it currently is. When those garbage posters leave everyone sits around and snipes anyone dumb enough to think an actual discussion could be had here. And maybe none of its against the rules, but it's behavior I'd say most decent people take issue with. Matter a fact ask anyone outside of this forum their perception of it, the responses are quite colorful, it's all pretty self evident what's going on here. It's pretty typical forum warrior behavior.

Ok, it seems you're unwilling to discuss this honestly.

My point clearly wasn't: he posts a lot. It was: he spends effort in engaging in discussion.
My suggestion was to take an inventory of his post by actually checking them. Your response is: I've seen him countless times say if you don't agree with him, you are stupid in one way or another.

So go ahead. Use your perception of his posts, instead of his actual posts to form your opinion on them. I can't argue with "I have seen him say". I can't check that. Which is why I suggested to take stock of what he actually posted. I was trying to get some objectivity into this, but it seems subjectivity suits you better. And I'm starting to see why.

So lastly, let me show you how you really go: "screw you guys, I'm going home".

Screw you guys, I'm going home.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Dogoncrook, you need some cake man... You're taking things waaaay too personally and getting yourself and everyone else wound up.

Spoiler

Life too short...

 

[ianw]

Is it a good time for a song from these fellas from the 70's?

Spoiler

[video=youtube;ZX6YR9nBSws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6YR9nBSws[/video]

 

[Hawkmoon]

You've never ordered a meal at a restaurant knowing what the description is (or just experimenting) but not being overly thrilled with what you received? Never had that conversation with friends, "Well, I gave this a go. Generally pretty good. But it kind of left me with a strange aftertaste?"

I really prefer when people discuss the OPs concerns (either agree with him, add to it, or explain why you think different) rather than just falling back on the simplistic "He should have known what he was buying."

But his concerns are all thing that he would have known about before he even bought the game what is the point in even responding to them except to say READ THE TIN!

Yes I have had things that were not quite what I was expecting but if I order chicken and get fish I will not be happy, however if I order fish and expect chicken then nit is my faut for not reading the menu. Even Bombay Duck tells you that it is fish in the description. Please do not try to defend this stupidity just make a donation to a charity and hope they
get some help.

 

[Khelder]

But his concerns are all thing that he would have known about before he even bought the game what is the point in even responding to them except to say READ THE TIN!

Yes I have had things that were not quite what I was expecting but if I order chicken and get fish I will not be happy, however if I order fish and expect chicken then nit is my faut for not reading the menu. Even Bombay Duck tells you that it is fish in the description. Please do not try to defend this stupidity just make a donation to a charity and hope they
get some help.

Look, I get what you (and others) are saying. I'm sure there have been some (perhaps many? I don't know) in the past who have come on to the forums screaming, "What is this? I bought this game thinking it's going to be full of great PvP and now they tell me the little cheats can cower away in EasyMode^TM! This is stupid. FD should give me a refund... and compensation for wasting my time... and a written apology!" or some such nonsense. The problem I see, is that not everyone is like that. Yet everyone seems to get generalised into the same mould and I find it quite offensive at times.

Recent case in point?

Its a long an winding road this thread. Far too much to read back.
I liked ideas about a buffing of rank progression etc for Open mode play, but I cannot see why the two instances need coexist. Why not embrace the separate rank branches? Is it the belief that any negative effects of switching between modes will be balanced by positive effects. I can see this logic, though often negative exploitation is more motivational than positive.
As an open player I'd like to see more players, but the game doesn't seem to be designed to implement that even if Solo mode was 'dropped'. Better to increase incentives to attract new open players and develop that population. The 'buffing' should not be applied to any powerplay variables.

I don't know what Buck's history is. I'm not going to bother to check. But he did decide to post in this thread with a simple opinion. He does admit to not reading everything before. Honestly, I don't blame him. Now, I'm having trouble understanding some of what he said (he possibly needs to word it a little differently), but I don't think any of it is particularly offensive... even if you flat out disagree with him. Yet, his post was immediately just used as fodder in the current argument with Dogoncrook.

Then there are people like me. As I have said before, I played Elite (I was pretty young though) back in the 80's on my BBC Micro. Have always loved the original. So, when I could, I purchased Elite: Dangerous and have since purchased the LEP. I did this with very little research because I had faith that FD would take the technology available to them today and create something awesome... which I believe they have. I know now that there are different modes and that they affect the same BGS. I didn't give it the slightest bit of thought when making a purchasing decision though.

I've never really been a forum-dweller before, but for some reason with ED, I decided to take an interest. At some point, I must have run across one or two complaints about the modes. That is the point that I started thinking about it. It wasn't really affecting me. It didn't bother me. It still doesn't, really. But as probably nothing more than an analytical exercise, I started thinking about the situation.

It honestly wasn't that difficult for me to conclude that some of the complaints did indeed have merit. I have no way of measuring the potential impact caused, but there is clearly a difference. It's pretty simple really. To claim that the modes are "equal" they would need to be the "same", but they aren't. They're different. That's the point of having them.

Now, I really hope that I don't get the usual stream of "You should have known what you were buying", "It's a core game feature", "Devs say they are treated equal, so they must be equal", or whatever. I've been fed them numerous times and really don't need to hear them again. I'm simply trying to lay a bit of groundwork.

So, that (amongst other things) was my conclusion, and I have said as such. I have also said that I have looked at it from other angles and have determined that whatever possible negative impacts there are with the mode situation, the positives achieved far outway them. Therefore, I continue to support the status quo as far as modes go.

Sorry. This wasn't supposed to be this long. :/

Anyway, so we have people like me. Didn't do research on the modes. Possibly because we didn't know or care at the time. Probably still don't really care that much now. But we tend to enjoy having somewhat intellectual discussions about things. Some of us put forward our thoughts eloquently, others don't (I hope I'm leaning towards the former).

Barking back at people like me that I should have known what I was buying makes no sense. I don't hate Elite. I'm not demanding my money back. I'm not lamenting that someone had pulled the wool over my eyes. But I will discuss what I see as flaws sometimes.

I would suggest that there are quite a few people like me who have made comments in the past on this topic. Maybe they just want to agree with what they too see. Maybe they don't realise that it has been discussed to death already and feel that maybe they can impart some wisdom to others. Maybe it does actually bother them and at that particular moment they let their frustration about a simple part of the game get the better of them.

Then they come here and are quite often treated with similar disrespect to what they themselves are accused of. Not all the time. But I have seen it enough.

That is why I made the initial comment about the, "You should have known what you were buying" comment. It's possible they should have. It's more likely that the comment made absolutely no sense at all in the context. But it was my frustration at the style of conversation that so often takes over these discussions that got the better of me.

 

[DarkWalker]

The downside, as you mentioned, is the additional transit times for packets. I'd be interested to know how much of a difference it makes though. I've seen other games that force this model.

If lag in the game isn't critical and the amount of data transferred is small, there's little reason to not use it. For something turn-based, for example, the downsides are nearly inexistent, and even for WoW-like (or EVE-like) ability based combat the downside shouldn't matter that much. For something fast-paced like ED, though, the downsides are far more relevant, both in the amount of data sent and in how lag is detrimental for the experience.

As for the lag, it really depends on the distance between you (and everyone else in the same instance) and the server. Best case scenario, with the players located fairly close and the relay server located at a roughly central position between the players, the added lag should be imperceptible; worst case scenario, a group of Australian players using a relay server located in the US will see a huge amount of extra lag (about twice the ping times from the players to the relay server), likely enough to make the game unplayable.

The game's original peer to peer model, after all, was chosen exactly because it minimizes lag, among other things.

 

[Khelder]

interesting...... hopefully someone will do some tests (note I am not volunteering ) to compare with it on or off..... if it makes a difference i will set mine to what ever has least lag. other than the desyncing of wing bonus when 1 member of your wing flies into a planet gravitywell I have not ha any bugs in multiplayer for the longest of time, and see plenty of player CMDRs so I am not sure I get any benefit from the new setting.

I'm not sure how you would go about testing it. Without a controlled environment, any results would be mostly subjective.

 

[Khelder]

If lag in the game isn't critical and the amount of data transferred is small, there's little reason to not use it. For something turn-based, for example, the downsides are nearly inexistent, and even for WoW-like (or EVE-like) ability based combat the downside shouldn't matter that much. For something fast-paced like ED, though, the downsides are far more relevant, both in the amount of data sent and in how lag is detrimental for the experience.

As for the lag, it really depends on the distance between you (and everyone else in the same instance) and the server. Best case scenario, with the players located fairly close and the relay server located at a roughly central position between the players, the added lag should be imperceptible; worst case scenario, a group of Australian players using a relay server located in the US will see a huge amount of extra lag (about twice the ping times from the players to the relay server), likely enough to make the game unplayable.

The game's original peer to peer model, after all, was chosen exactly because it minimizes lag, among other things.

Yes. In theory, I (as an Australian player - yay) should expect a degraded experience in that scenario. I wonder if I would actually get a benefit when playing with someone from a different country because we would both be communicating with what I assume would be prioritised bandwidth to AWS instead of tunnelling to each other through several sets of convoluted local ISP route paths. My networking experience isn't strong enough to go further with that one.