Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[SNaomiScott]

As I said previously I draw the line at the opportunity to stop them. Arguments about the effectiveness of that opportunity, while valid in the context of discussing things Frontier could do differently, do not invalidate the benefit of having that opportunity in the first place.

But you already have that opportunity: playing the BGS yourself. For every action they undertake there is an equal and opposite (or potentially even greater) action that you can undertake to cancel out their effect on your faction. Directly countering their effect with one of your own without the need to *ever* come face-to-face with another Commander. Why is this not enough?

(Sorry, I know I said my previous question was the last one but I'm really having difficulty understanding why you feel the need to come face-to-face with other Commanders in order to play the BGS.)

 

[Tarman]

But you already have that opportunity: playing the BGS yourself. For every action they undertake there is an equal and opposite (or potentially even greater) action that you can undertake to cancel out their effect on your faction. Directly countering their effect with one of your own without the need to *ever* come face-to-face with another Commander. Why is this not enough?

(Sorry, I know I said my previous question was the last one but I'm really having difficulty understanding why you feel the need to come face-to-face with other Commanders in order to play the BGS.)

You can't make people sad if you can't attack them directly, nor can you prove your pixel manliness. Think of the egos, man!

Also, many people do not realize how BIG space really is, and assume they don't see anyone because they're "hiding" in another mode; not because it's a literal scale model of the entire actual Milky Way.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

And your preference impinges on mine, since there's nothing I can do about your actions in solo. I don't see how I'm being unreasonable. I've expressed my opinion, people have argued against it, and I have provided arguments in response. That I don't agree with you does not make me unreasonable. Your arguments have simply failed to convince me, as my arguments have clearly failed to do for you. It's disappointing to hear that this community would ridicule someone for disagreeing with them. I certainly haven't done anything to justify it.

I certainly think ridiculue is harsh however please try to consider it from the other side.

Imagine I am an arcade race fan and I love burnout (I do as it happens) I then buy iracing not knowing it is a fairly hardcore race sim with no ai and no ramming of other cars allowed.

Should I a) accept I made a mistake and either adapt my playstyle to the game or give up and move on... Or
B) complain I can't ram players at will without getting in trouble and ask that the game is change to suit me regardless of the effect on the rest.

If I did that I would be laughed out of the forum.

More sensible eg.
Starwars battlefront. I was so looking forward to this game then I learned no story campaign. I was gutted when I learned the game is reskinned bf4.

But rather than get angry I vote with my wallet

 

[Agony_Aunt]

As, so you don't have an actual percentage of the players who only play for the BGS and would refuse to play in open. Just some vague numbers. I'm disappointed. For a second I thought you had a compelling argument.

Hard to guage that one, since i don't think many people only for the BGS. However, a more telling survey would be how many would choose what mode should the BGS be split between Open and Solo/Group. I can't naturally give firm figures, but i'd be willing to bet good money that a decent percentage, at least 20%, if not more, would choose Group/Solo rather than open. I'd even be willing to hedge as high as 40% considering all the hoo-ha there was about offlinegate and the number of people who play in Mobius.

 

[Dave1235]

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.

All of which could be gotten around with a little networking knowledge, apparently downloading / streaming films etc can turn open into solo as well as an incorrectly set up router, or switching off upnp on the router (or is it a game setting IDK). There are apparently about a dozen other methods people can use to turn open into solo, but they are a bit above my level.

So all anyone needs to do is ask "which routers should I avoid if I want to play with others in ED" or as someone else mentioned the other day, some providers allow you to white list IP's, I would change my ISP for that feature if your suggestion ever gained any traction.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Oh good, so it wouldn't be difficult for Frontier to implement it on a larger scale. That's fantastic.

Theoretically, no - no great problems, I would not expect implementing such a change. However, it's not quite as simple as that. The change may be possible but Frontier, as the developer, have to deem it both desirable and advisable.

 

[Beer4TheBeerGod]

But you already have that opportunity: playing the BGS yourself. For every action they undertake there is an equal and opposite (or potentially even greater) action that you can undertake to cancel out their effect on your faction. Directly countering their effect with one of your own without the need to *ever* come face-to-face with another Commander. Why is this not enough?

(Sorry, I know I said my previous question was the last one but I'm really having difficulty understanding why you feel the need to come face-to-face with other Commanders in order to play the BGS.)

Because that's not a direct counter. I have no way of knowing that player is doing something. I won't even see the impact of that player's actions until the BGS ticks over. At least by forcing those players into open I'll have a chance to possibly see them and react. If they're at a conflict zone I'll be able to attack them. If they're goods I'll be able to interdict or blockade them. Obviously the instancing system isn't perfect and there are workarounds, but the possibility is better than none at all. As it stands right now a player can harm my faction and there's nothing I can do about it. I can help my faction by continuing to do the same things with the BSG that I would likely do otherwise, but the player who is hurting my faction is free to do so with completely anonymity and no risk. I feel that's wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Theoretically, no - no great problems, I would not expect implementing such a change. However, it's not quite as simple as that. The change may be possible but Frontier, as the developer, have to deem it both desirable and advisable.

No argument here. I'm just glad to see that the technical option already exists.

- - - Updated - - -

All of which could be gotten around with a little networking knowledge, apparently downloading / streaming films etc can turn open into solo as well as an incorrectly set up router, or switching off upnp on the router (or is it a game setting IDK). There are apparently about a dozen other methods people can use to turn open into solo, but they are a bit above my level.

So all anyone needs to do is ask "which routers should I avoid if I want to play with others in ED" or as someone else mentioned the other day, some providers allow you to white list IP's, I would change my ISP for that feature if your suggestion ever gained any traction.

There's not much I can do about whatever technical limitations Frontier has with their game. All I'm concerned about is the possibility being there.

 

[fademist]

Because that's not a direct counter. I have no way of knowing that player is doing something. I won't even see the impact of that player's actions until the BGS ticks over. At least by forcing those players into open I'll have a chance to possibly see them and react. If they're at a conflict zone I'll be able to attack them. If they're goods I'll be able to interdict or blockade them. Obviously the instancing system isn't perfect and there are workarounds, but the possibility is better than none at all. As it stands right now a player can harm my faction and there's nothing I can do about it. I can help my faction by continuing to do the same things with the BSG that I would likely do otherwise, but the player who is hurting my faction is free to do so with completely anonymity and no risk. I feel that's wrong.

and the same time fd will lose money if they do that ;p

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

I believe David has said before that he does not favour guilds bullying people out of certain areas of space and preventing them from accessing features in that region. Locked open and NBSI player factions would certainly do this to some extent.

 

[Calrissian]

I don't understand the big deal. So far, in my experiences, Open and Solo play are roughly the same. I've seen and tried to talk to people in Open and get no response. So the advantage of Open play (to interact with other players) is a moot point if nobody's talking or at the very least, talking to me so not much difference in my regard.

Any player would likely get more done in Solo Mode anyway because of the lack of any potential threat from real people. :-/

 

[Beer4TheBeerGod]

and the same time fd will lose money if they do that ;p

They could easily gain more customers than they could potentially lose if the result is more compelling and emergent gameplay. One of ED's most prevalent criticisms is that the game is fairly shallow, with little to do once a certain threshold of achievement has been reached. Encouraging conflict in this fashion would help that while minimizing the impact to players who wish to be left alone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They could easily gain more customers than they could potentially lose if the result is more compelling and emergent gameplay. One of ED's most prevalent criticisms is that the game is fairly shallow, with little to do once a certain threshold of achievement has been reached. Encouraging conflict in this fashion would help that while minimizing the impact to players who wish to be left alone.

This is where the argument for "make this change and you'll get more players" falls down - there are no numbers involved - just an opinion.

 

[DaveB]

Because that's not a direct counter. I have no way of knowing that player is doing something. I won't even see the impact of that player's actions until the BGS ticks over. At least by forcing those players into open I'll have a chance to possibly see them and react. If they're at a conflict zone I'll be able to attack them. If they're goods I'll be able to interdict or blockade them. Obviously the instancing system isn't perfect and there are workarounds, but the possibility is better than none at all. As it stands right now a player can harm my faction and there's nothing I can do about it. I can help my faction by continuing to do the same things with the BSG that I would likely do otherwise, but the player who is hurting my faction is free to do so with completely anonymity and no risk. I feel that's wrong.

All true, and that's the way it was designed to work. ALL your influence on the BGS is indirect - with the separate instances all impacting the same BGS and the ONLY difference between "Open" "Group" and "Solo" being who the matchmaking code might put you in an instance with. As it was in the beginning, is now and forever more shall be, Amen. If that's a deal-breaker for you I'll be sorry to see you go, but (hate to trot out a "lazy" point but it's true) you knew - or should have known - that's what you were buying in this game.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
As it stands right now a player can harm my faction and there's nothing I can do about it. I can help my faction by continuing to do the same things with the BSG that I would likely do otherwise, but the player who is hurting my faction is free to do so with completely anonymity and no risk. I feel that's wrong.

Yes, that player in Solo is free from the risk of meeting you, but the other side of the coin is that they cannot do anything to directly oppose you, as they cannot see you either.

So in fact, you can indeed help your faction, either by directly opposing players who choose to play with you in Open or by simply playing the BGS (doing missions, whatever), and any players in Solo who might be supporting your faction balance out the effects of the players working against your interests in Solo.

 

[Phosphora]

Players can tweak their router settings to play in Open without seeing anyone. They'd still affect the 'open' bgs, but no player could touch them.

Creating a new bgs would soak up development time, and wouldn't solve the 'problem'.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Dave1235]

As, so you don't have an actual percentage of the players who only play for the BGS and would refuse to play in open. Just some vague numbers. I'm disappointed. For a second I thought you had a compelling argument.

We also don't have a percentage that back your change, I have counted 2 so far, both Goons, sorry frogs, possibly a coincidence.

So lets discuss the elephant in the room, what are you goons, sorry frogs planning that is so bad you are worried you are going to annoy enough players to go solo and destroy your minor faction?

Ps

Here is one I made earlier, as they say on the TV. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=182525

Gotta love FD.

 

[Beer4TheBeerGod]

This is where the argument for "make this change and you'll get more players" falls down - there are no numbers involved - just an opinion.

The same can be said for the counter argument of "make this change and you'll lose players", which has repeatedly been used in this thread. As you say there are no numbers, just opinions. It's also why I said they "could" gain more customers.

All true, and that's the way it was designed to work. ALL your influence on the BGS is indirect - with the separate instances all impacting the same BGS and the ONLY difference between "Open" "Group" and "Solo" being who the matchmaking code might put you in an instance with. As it was in the beginning, is now and forever more shall be, Amen. If that's a deal-breaker for you I'll be sorry to see you go, but (hate to trot out a "lazy" point but it's true) you knew - or should have known - that's what you were buying in this game.

It's not a deal-breaker. I have an opinion and I'm expressing it. Arguments that I should be satisfied with the status quo because it's how the game is ignore the fact that Elite is constantly in development and continues to change. When I purchased Elite there was no Power Play and no player factions. We weren't close to driving around on planets and doing other cool things. Frontier has clearly established a willingness to modify and change their game. It's reasonable to embrace that willingness and provide arguments for having things in a certain way.

 

[Tarman]

Because that's not a direct counter. I have no way of knowing that player is doing something. I won't even see the impact of that player's actions until the BGS ticks over. At least by forcing those players into open I'll have a chance to possibly see them and react. If they're at a conflict zone I'll be able to attack them. If they're goods I'll be able to interdict or blockade them. Obviously the instancing system isn't perfect and there are workarounds, but the possibility is better than none at all. As it stands right now a player can harm my faction and there's nothing I can do about it. I can help my faction by continuing to do the same things with the BSG that I would likely do otherwise, but the player who is hurting my faction is free to do so with completely anonymity and no risk. I feel that's wrong.


No argument here. I'm just glad to see that the technical option already exists.


There's not much I can do about whatever technical limitations Frontier has with their game. All I'm concerned about is the possibility being there.

Possibility is irrelevant if probability is practically nil. You could possibly shove 500 kidney beans into your sinuses, but likelihood is pretty low even if it's technically possible.

Also, there are ten ways to end up not seeing a player even if they play Open alldayerryday. Dinking around with modes the way you want is only going to dent the playerbase, not give you your glorious "you'll learn to appreciate the things I do to you one day" game. Got games out there exactly like this already anyway.

 

[Jockey79]

Frontier has clearly established a willingness to modify and change their game.

And they have shown an unwillingness to change the core design as well.
They have flatly come out and said the modes and switching is equal and they are not changing it.

See the "Wall of Information" covering the times they have said that over the last 3 years, last one was only a few months ago.

 

[DarkWalker]

All of which could be gotten around with a little networking knowledge, apparently downloading / streaming films etc can turn open into solo as well as an incorrectly set up router, or switching off upnp on the router (or is it a game setting IDK). There are apparently about a dozen other methods people can use to turn open into solo, but they are a bit above my level.

(Accidentally tested it at home and it works, BTW )