Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[relayer]

"Mods, fire up the Quattr-Open!"

"10,000 quatloos on the newcomer!"

 

[Neminem]

Oooh. Would that make VII 'The Mode Awakens'?

Maybe - but only if the Disney Princess is elected as new Emperor first...

 

[DarkWalker]

For this ogre of a thread? Open vs Solo vs Group 4 ever.

 

[withnail]

I can rest easy that I played no part in any of this.

 

[Beer4TheBeerGod]

I am of the opinion that, as FD increases player involvement through things like player factions, that there should be a difference between how solo/group play and open play affects the game. I agree that it's important that players who do not wish to encounter other players should have a means of playing Elite without doing so. Nor should players who wish to play alone be penalized through bonuses or enticements such as credit or reputation benefits. Anything that directly impacts the core gameplay of Elite (flying, credits, reputation, community goals, etc) should be the same regardless of whether you are a solo or open player. If there is a difference between the playing styles, it should only impact the aspects of the game that are directly tied to player conflict. At this moment that aspect is faction influence. With that in mind I think Frontier should consider removing the ability of players within solo or group play to alter faction influence (not Power Play, just the influence of a faction within the system). Players who run missions or kill members of a faction would still receive bounties, rewards, and have their reputation with that faction change. But there would be no change in influence. This approach eliminates the problem of players messing with other factions in a consequence free fashion while minimizing the negative impact to players who prefer to play solo or in groups.

 

[Jockey79]

It will all become legend and rumour... and when someone asks if there really ever was such a thread, Jockey will lean on his rickety shoulder and say; "It's all true..."

LMAO !!!

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this

Will rep as soon as I can

LOL !! - You lot are nuts around here

 

[Julissa Silver]

LOL !! - You lot are nuts around here

Bacon, cats and nuts. It's what we do.

 

[Buck]

And see Dogoncrook, this is an example of why Jockey, Robert, myself and others repeat ourselves. People post the same things that have been posted again and again.

Do I need to apologise for joining in? It's the nature of a mega thread that new participants arrive late to the party. I read the first 10 pages. Opinions and ideas were offered/absorbed and I supplied my own thoughts. It's inevitable now that all bases have been covered, but the volume of voices is always evolving.

Later additions from Jockey seem to imply by referencing the original reference to the above quote that 'open' players are motivated by zsoft targets. To clarify it's not my intention to shoot anyone lol. It's just the interaction, simple as that.
That being said I do not see solo as inferior, it's just a different product. At the crux of any issue is the opportunity to exploit beyond the intended design. This is possible right?
It's probably why this 'discussion' exists...though I wonder if joining it is actually allowed??

 

[Dave1235]

<snip> With that in mind I think Frontier should consider removing the ability of players within solo or group play to alter faction influence (not Power Play, just the influence of a faction within the system). Players who run missions or kill members of a faction would still receive bounties, rewards, and have their reputation with that faction change. But there would be no change in influence. This approach eliminates the problem of players messing with other factions in a consequence free fashion while minimizing the negative impact to players who prefer to play solo or in groups.

OK no takers yet, I will have a quick go, lets use the most obvious one.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=38362&p=720344&viewfull=1#post720344

Mobius is not only a PVE group but a minor faction, if I read you correctly you are suggesting that the 13,500 members of the PVE group formed to avoid the PVP in open, would need to play in open to work for their faction, be it Mobius on another one?

ETA
Out of interest what minor faction do you support that this worries you?

 

[Buck]

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?



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.

This is a hell of a long quote but echos many of my thoughts. I'm 3 pages behind as I quote this. Obviously wandered innocently into something.

 

[Beer4TheBeerGod]

OK no takers yet, I will have a quick go, lets use the most obvious one.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=38362&p=720344&viewfull=1#post720344

Mobius is not only a PVE group but a minor faction, if I read you correctly you are suggesting that the 13,500 members of the PVE group formed to avoid the PVP in open, would need to play in open to work for their faction, be it Mobius on another one?

ETA
Out of interest what minor faction do you support that this worries you?

It's an opinion, not a worry. And my opinion is that all organizations, including Mobius, would have to play in open to affect faction influence. I support Diamond Frogs.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

It's an opinion, not a worry. And my opinion is that all organizations, including Mobius, would have to play in open to affect faction influence. I support Diamond Frogs.

All the People in Mobius are as much organized as all people in Open. Meaning not at lot.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I support Diamond Frogs.

For some reason I like the sound of that

 

[Roland2]

I am of the opinion that, as FD increases player involvement through things like player factions, that there should be a difference between how solo/group play and open play affects the game. I agree that it's important that players who do not wish to encounter other players should have a means of playing Elite without doing so. Nor should players who wish to play alone be penalized through bonuses or enticements such as credit or reputation benefits. Anything that directly impacts the core gameplay of Elite (flying, credits, reputation, community goals, etc) should be the same regardless of whether you are a solo or open player. If there is a difference between the playing styles, it should only impact the aspects of the game that are directly tied to player conflict. At this moment that aspect is faction influence. With that in mind I think Frontier should consider removing the ability of players within solo or group play to alter faction influence (not Power Play, just the influence of a faction within the system). Players who run missions or kill members of a faction would still receive bounties, rewards, and have their reputation with that faction change. But there would be no change in influence. This approach eliminates the problem of players messing with other factions in a consequence free fashion while minimizing the negative impact to players who prefer to play solo or in groups.

Why? Why should open players be able to influence the shared galaxy, but solo and group can't? Do XBone open players get to influence the galaxy they share with PC/Mac players? How about the XBone solo players, do they get to influence the galaxy we all share?

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

It's an opinion, not a worry. And my opinion is that all organizations, including Mobius, would have to play in open to affect faction influence. I support Diamond Frogs.

So that means that if, for example, someone was technically not able to play in open, they should be penalised, yes? Solo is designed so that the game may be played on minimal bandwidth and without the need for uPnP or P2P connections. So people who work on satellite links, play in there own time on business trips when staying in Hotels, live in college dorms, use a 'shared' or metered internet connection, live in remote areas of Canada, all these people should be cut out of influencing factions because...? (I'm really asking...)

 

[Dave1235]

It's an opinion, not a worry. And my opinion is that all organizations, including Mobius, would have to play in open to affect faction influence. I support Diamond Frogs.

Interesting, so did Kermit leave the goons to join you or are the ED goons using a new name now?

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=194108&highlight=diamond+frogs

Ahh I reread, you have Tex too, Goons re-branded, tell Tex I said hi .

 

[Roland2]

Do I need to apologise for joining in? It's the nature of a mega thread that new participants arrive late to the party. I read the first 10 pages. Opinions and ideas were offered/absorbed and I supplied my own thoughts. It's inevitable now that all bases have been covered, but the volume of voices is always evolving.

Later additions from Jockey seem to imply by referencing the original reference to the above quote that 'open' players are motivated by zsoft targets. To clarify it's not my intention to shoot anyone lol. It's just the interaction, simple as that.
That being said I do not see solo as inferior, it's just a different product. At the crux of any issue is the opportunity to exploit beyond the intended design. This is possible right?
It's probably why this 'discussion' exists...though I wonder if joining it is actually allowed??

Nope, no need to apologize. It might be interesting to some if you stated why you felt it necessary to post the same thing you read that others have posted. What did you expect to accomplish? Just stating the same thing over and over...etc. again without a reason, seams to not be the smartest thing in the world.

 

[Buck]

So once an opinion/idea has been posted its barred from repetition? That wasn't my intention. While the opinion might be the same it differs in that it is mine.
Anyhow I certainly did not intend to be used as a tool or weapon to demonstrate both the recursive nature of this thread (that I am now aware of) or for assumptions to be made about the intricacies of my core beliefs that may have been inferred.
Players who join the community should be comfortable in adding their voice, after all the debate can continue to educate and change opinions. It doesn't have to be such a rigid stance.

 

[Buck]

Nope, no need to apologize. It might be interesting to some if you stated why you felt it necessary to post the same thing you read that others have posted. What did you expect to accomplish? Just stating the same thing over and over...etc. again without a reason, seams to not be the smartest thing in the world.

The last comment is a prime example of passive aggression and an unnecessary addition. You are assuming reposting opinion was my direct intention. It wasn't, though it quickly became apparent the impatience/intolerance towards this side effect of the threads overarching detail.
Why don't the mods just lock this thread?

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

The last comment is a prime example of passive aggression and an unnecessary addition. You are assuming reposting opinion was my direct intention. It wasn't, though it quickly became apparent the impatience/intolerance towards this side effect of the threads overarching detail.
Why don't the mods just lock this thread?

Enough with the Meta.

Speak your mind and be done with it.