Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Beer4TheBeerGod]

What is the point in participating in Powerplay or Community Goals if not to affect the outcome?

Frontier have been very clear that both of these activities were designed for players in all three game modes.

The single shared galaxy state between all game modes has been a core feature of the game since the beginning of the Kickstarter (very nearly three years ago). Frontier recently announced that another platform will affect it, the Xbox One - a group of players that we don't expect to be able to cross-play with and therefore cannot directly interact with.

Frontier's game design allows every player to experience and affect the single shared galaxy state - the player affected galaxy (with tweaks from Frontier themselves) would seem very much to be their vision for the game.

Frontier did not design either Community Goals or Powerplay to have mandatory direct countering of players actions - they designed them for all players - not just those who prefer PvP.

This last is unclear - how can players affect something that they cannot influence?

Powerplay and Community Goals would be completely unaffected by my suggestion. Only system influence associated with factions. The galaxy would still be shared between all three.

This (highlighted) is where your argument falls down.

Open does not equal a guarantee that this happens. Because... XBone, Horizons, Instancing. So what, are you going to argue that XBone Open players should not be able to influence the BSG? What then about Horizons when it comes. Are you going to suggest that those who didn't buy Horizons but still play the original in Open should be cut out of influencing the BSG... Actually, maybe you want to argue the other way round, after all, if you don't have Horizons you can't interact directly with the Horizon's player after they go sub-orbital. So maybe you should suggest that in that case, the Horizons player should be excluded from influencing the BSG.

In fact, why don't we go the whole hog and just suggest why not just exclude everybody from influencing the BSG except the people you choose at a whim. Because your suggestion is like catching water in a colander.

Beside which, the option to interact is already there, both in Open and Groups, you just have to do a bit of organizing in advance. Put a community event on the forum and see how many people come to your bash fest. It's been done before. Check out the Buckyball Races, the Sidewinder League (can't remember the name.)

Why don't you just go blow raspberries at Glutteny Fang and done... and leave the rest of us to enjoy what we are doing.

That's why I say option, and not requirement. Xbox players in open would be able to affect influence because other Xbox players would have the option to counter them. You're more than welcome to enjoy what you're doing. The only change would be that, if what you're doing is not in Open, then it wouldn't impact what I'm doing. Simple as that.

 

[Cody]

That took some courage...

<chuckles> I do take exception when someone mentions in-game bravery - that's cobblers!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Powerplay and Community Goals would be completely unaffected by my suggestion. Only system influence associated with factions. The galaxy would still be shared between all three.

The few Player Group sponsored minor factions are massively outnumbered by NPC minor factions - are you suggesting that the former should be treated differently simply because they are player sponsored?

That's why I say option, and not requirement. Xbox players in open would be able to affect influence because other Xbox players would have the option to counter them. You're more than welcome to enjoy what you're doing. The only change would be that, if what you're doing is not in Open, then it wouldn't impact what I'm doing. Simple as that.

.... except for the fact that what you would be doing in Open would be affecting players in the other two modes.

 

[SNaomiScott]

As I see it the BGS is affected by player actions. Having the option to stop those player actions directly, instead of countering them indirectly through PvE, should be mandatory if factions are to be affiliated with player groups. That's not to say that PvP itself should be mandatory, just that the option be there.

Okay, here's a hypothetical situation regarding the BGS for you:

Let's assume that Commander A is working against your favourite faction (Faction P) by taking missions from the Bulletin Board for the other factions in your home system (let's call it System Y). In this particular example Commander A decides to take a pirate hunting mission based in a system 12Ly away (let's call it System Y). He accepts the mission, launches from the dock and hyper jumps to System Y, where he flies around mopping up pirates with gay abandon. After meeting his target he then docks at a station in System Y to turn in the bounties, and then hyper jumps back to System X to cash in the mission reward, earning himself some credits and rep, and raising the influence of the faction that issued the mission. All of this takes place in Open.

Here's my question: At what point do you, as a member of Faction P, find out that Commander A is doing *anything at all* for one of the other factions? He doesn't have a flag attached to him saying 'I work for Faction Q, R, or S', and there are currently no mechanisms within the game to advise faction allies that Commander A has accepted an enemy faction's mission. All you see (assuming you're lucky enough to be logged on and in the same instance at the same time as Commander A) is Commander A arrive at your station, sit on the landing pad for a bit, and then leave. If you're really lucky you may see him come back later.

The same goes for trading: current evidence suggests that traders who buy goods from your station raise the controlling faction's influence, while traders who bring goods into the station lower the faction's influence - are you going to hunt down and destroy every inbound trader just to stop them from affecting your faction's influence?

About the only place where the BGS can be directly affected by PvP is in a Conflict Zone, and they only crop up in certain situations, i.e. Civil Wars.

Changing the game so that only Open players can affect the BGS wouldn't make one bit of a difference to how easy or difficult it is to counter player influence, because with the exception of CZs there is absolutely no way of knowing what the other players are doing to affect the BGS, so it makes absolutely no difference whether they're doing it in Open, Solo or Group because the results are always going to be the same.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

<wanders by - ponders bravery> Hmm...

If this post gets repped, I feel Cody should receive 10% more rep for his bravery.

 

[Khelder]

<chuckles> I do take exception when someone mentions in-game bravery - that's cobblers!

What word would you use instead?

 

[Tuub t Tute]

If this post gets repped, I feel Cody should receive 10% more rep for his bravery.

He's a Starrrrrrrrr-Wingman, waiting in this thread... It looks like never ending, though we sometimes wish it dead...

 

[Khelder]

If this post gets repped, I feel Cody should receive 10% more rep for his bravery.

I fear he would take exception to that.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

What word would you use instead?

Corduroy

 

[ViciousMink]

So the best (only?) way to 'directly affect' someone who is working against you is to blow them out of the stars? Man, that's good to know; that's going to make the morning commute a lot easier. Oh! Now I know how I can... deal with my competitors!

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Corduroy

Ooh. That rubs...

 

[Beer4TheBeerGod]

The few Player Group sponsored minor factions are massively outnumbered by NPC minor factions - are you suggesting that the former should be treated differently simply because they are player sponsored?

.... except for the fact that what you would be doing in Open would be affecting players in the other two modes.

I haven't said anything suggesting factions be treated differently. If a player wants to influence a random faction that's unaffiliated with a player group, they would have to do so in open. Same as a player wanting to influence a faction affiliated with a group. And yes, the whole point of my solution is that the only way to affect faction influence would be through Open play. Naturally that would affect players in solo or group. The "read only" comment mentioned previously is a perfect way to describe it.

Okay, here's a hypothetical situation regarding the BGS for you:

Let's assume that Commander A is working against your favourite faction (Faction P) by taking missions from the Bulletin Board for the other factions in your home system (let's call it System Y). In this particular example Commander A decides to take a pirate hunting mission based in a system 12Ly away (let's call it System Y). He accepts the mission, launches from the dock and hyper jumps to System Y, where he flies around mopping up pirates with gay abandon. After meeting his target he then docks at a station in System Y to turn in the bounties, and then hyper jumps back to System X to cash in the mission reward, earning himself some credits and rep, and raising the influence of the faction that issued the mission. All of this takes place in Open.

Here's my question: At what point do you, as a member of Faction P, find out that Commander A is doing *anything at all* for one of the other factions? He doesn't have a flag attached to him saying 'I work for Faction Q, R, or S', and there are currently no mechanisms within the game to advise faction allies that Commander A has accepted an enemy faction's mission. All you see (assuming you're lucky enough to be logged on and in the same instance at the same time as Commander A) is Commander A arrive at your station, sit on the landing pad for a bit, and then leave. If you're really lucky you may see him come back later.

The same goes for trading: current evidence suggests that traders who buy goods from your station raise the controlling faction's influence, while traders who bring goods into the station lower the faction's influence - are you going to hunt down and destroy every inbound trader just to stop them from affecting your faction's influence?

About the only place where the BGS can be directly affected by PvP is in a Conflict Zone, and they only crop up in certain situations, i.e. Civil Wars.

Changing the game so that only Open players can affect the BGS wouldn't make one bit of a difference to how easy or difficult it is to counter player influence, because with the exception of CZs there is absolutely no way of knowing what the other players are doing to affect the BGS, so it makes absolutely no difference whether they're doing it in Open, Solo or Group because the results are always going to be the same.

Presumably I would notice that Commander A is doing something when he/she starts running missions over and over again. At that point if I don't know him I might send him a message, or simply shoot him out of NBSI principals. I disagree that the results are always going to be the same. As you say conflict zones are an example of where PvP can directly influence things. The difference is that in solo mode it is impossible for me to even have the possibility of countering Commander A. I want that possibility. Otherwise the issues you bring up are entirely valid and a good example of things that Frontier could do to improve gameplay for players. Perhaps if a player does a lot of missions for an opposing faction I could notice they are friendly to that faction and justifiably attack them for their affiliation. Or the faction could note that a given commander is heavily influencing the balance of power and flag him/her for it. Knowing that sort of thing would be good.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

That's why I say option, and not requirement. Xbox players in open would be able to affect influence because other Xbox players would have the option to counter them. You're more than welcome to enjoy what you're doing. The only change would be that, if what you're doing is not in Open, then it wouldn't impact what I'm doing. Simple as that.

So how would you feel if I suggested that because you are affecting my game (i.e. as I play in Solo for technical reasons, no uPnP and therefore no p2p connections, I'm not avoiding you, I simply cannot choose to join you... as in I do not have the option even if I wanted to) you should not be allowed to influence the BGS?

 

[Khelder]

Okay, here's a hypothetical situation regarding the BGS for you:

Let's assume that Commander A is working against your favourite faction (Faction P) by taking missions from the Bulletin Board for the other factions in your home system (let's call it System Y). In this particular example Commander A decides to take a pirate hunting mission based in a system 12Ly away (let's call it System Y). He accepts the mission, launches from the dock and hyper jumps to System Y, where he flies around mopping up pirates with gay abandon. After meeting his target he then docks at a station in System Y to turn in the bounties, and then hyper jumps back to System X to cash in the mission reward, earning himself some credits and rep, and raising the influence of the faction that issued the mission. All of this takes place in Open.

Here's my question: At what point do you, as a member of Faction P, find out that Commander A is doing *anything at all* for one of the other factions? He doesn't have a flag attached to him saying 'I work for Faction Q, R, or S', and there are currently no mechanisms within the game to advise faction allies that Commander A has accepted an enemy faction's mission. All you see (assuming you're lucky enough to be logged on and in the same instance at the same time as Commander A) is Commander A arrive at your station, sit on the landing pad for a bit, and then leave. If you're really lucky you may see him come back later.

The same goes for trading: current evidence suggests that traders who buy goods from your station raise the controlling faction's influence, while traders who bring goods into the station lower the faction's influence - are you going to hunt down and destroy every inbound trader just to stop them from affecting your faction's influence?

About the only place where the BGS can be directly affected by PvP is in a Conflict Zone, and they only crop up in certain situations, i.e. Civil Wars.

Changing the game so that only Open players can affect the BGS wouldn't make one bit of a difference to how easy or difficult it is to counter player influence, because with the exception of CZs there is absolutely no way of knowing what the other players are doing to affect the BGS, so it makes absolutely no difference whether they're doing it in Open, Solo or Group because the results are always going to be the same.

You've made a very good point there. (Except I think you mixed up System X and Y in the first paragraph)

There would be a possible time when actions would become know, or at least suspected. Say, for example, you supported a player-faction of pirates. Someone posts on these forums something along the lines of, "Hey! We should all gang up on these pirates from System X because... reasons." A bunch of others chime in and say, "I'll take some of that action." And it's on. Player-faction from System X needs to do some work to defend their position.

That being said, it's still going to be difficult (next to impossible?) to determine who is doing what. You'd probably have to resort to taking out anyone who got close. And, ultimately, boosting influence via PvE missions would likely be the better option.

 

[Faded Glory]

<wanders by - ponders bravery> Hmm...

I was going to say something, but I got scared...

 

[Robert Maynard]

I haven't said anything suggesting factions be treated differently. If a player wants to influence a random faction that's unaffiliated with a player group, they would have to do so in open. Same as a player wanting to influence a faction affiliated with a group. And yes, the whole point of my solution is that the only way to affect faction influence would be through Open play. Naturally that would affect players in solo or group. The "read only" comment mentioned previously is a perfect way to describe it.

The only players currently on "read only" access to the shared galaxy state are those who have been shadowbanned - what you suggest as beneficial for players who like to directly oppose other players has already been implemented by Frontier as a form of punishment for players who are caught transgressing.

 

[Khelder]

Corduroy

Nope... Nope. Nope. Nope. Not a fan.

... reasons!

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Nope... Nope. Nope. Nope. Not a fan.

... reasons!

Corduroy is my favourite colour, because it feels minty!

 

[Jockey79]

I took that to mean that the pro-change lobby were demanding whatever they were demanding without sensible reasons or just simply saying that it "feels" right a certain way. If I am mistaken, I apologise.

My point was that there are a lot in the anti-change lobby whose arguments for mode status quo come down to largely emotional reasoning. There are a lot of, "I want Solo because I refuse to play with other people." While I accept that is a valid reason for them, I wouldn't exactly call it anything other than emotional.

Research, expectations, etc, didn't really come into it.

I was just pointing out (as you said "on both sides"), that a lot of the "defenders" of the modes / switching is not "feelings" or "reasons" - it is on principle that they bought a product. They expect to keep the product they bought.
Which is where to research part comes in to it. If you look up and make an informed choice over a purchase - you'd not be happy if someone who didn't do that tried to get yours changed on you, because they couldn't be bothered to do some reading up themselves.

You're in danger of feeding more examples to Dogoncrook here.

He can meta game the forums all he likes, constantly being "offended" over generalised comments not aimed at anyone and spamming the report button is an old trick to get people banned - and I've never seen it work here.
But he is welcome to keep trying - even if he succeeds, he doesn't gain anything - someone else will post the "Wall of Information" while I'm not around and continue to point out those who chose to ignore what they were buying.

 

[Khelder]

Otherwise the issues you bring up are entirely valid and a good example of things that Frontier could do to improve gameplay for players. Perhaps if a player does a lot of missions for an opposing faction I could notice they are friendly to that faction and justifiably attack them for their affiliation. Or the faction could note that a given commander is heavily influencing the balance of power and flag him/her for it. Knowing that sort of thing would be good.

It would make a lot of sense to know a pilot's standing with the power you support - similar (somewhat) to PP tags. Might get complicated to implement.

- - - Updated - - -

I was just pointing out (as you said "on both sides"), that a lot of the "defenders" of the modes / switching is not "feelings" or "reasons" - it is on principle that they bought a product. They expect to keep the product they bought.
Which is where to research part comes in to it. If you look up and make an informed choice over a purchase - you'd not be happy if someone who didn't do that tried to get yours changed on you, because they couldn't be bothered to do some reading up themselves.

Sorry. I'm going to have to put "on principle" and "you'd not be happy" in the emotional category.