Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[DarkWalker]

Sorry. I'm not directly answering your question. I'm no legal expert and I try to avoid thinking about it if I can. The thought of people willing to take legal action against a game company because they changed the game (core feature or not) just infuriates me.

If I purchase a product for a specific, advertised feature, and that feature is absent, I will demand a refund. If I don't get one, I will look at my legal options. That is true for any kind of product, not just games.

I've already made an exception with Frontier once, when they removed the offline mode; I'm not in the mood to extend that courtesy twice.

My main thought was that I don't think creating an "open group" would really resolve anything. You're just rearranging the furniture. The only change that would resolve the argument (I think) would be to remove PvP. Keep Open as a way to interact with others. But Open technically becomes Open PvE. That would take away the "I can't challenge them face-to-face" argument because there would no longer be any way to "challenge". It would also upset a lot of people. Which would probably lead back to the legal thing. *facepalm*

Rearranging the furniture is sometimes all that you need. In this case, what he suggested would imply that Open is just a group like any other, without otherwise changing any functionality from the game. I doubt this would cause any issues, legal or otherwise, but (assuming that is Frontier's intent) it would make it clearer that Open won't get special treatment over Group mode.

 

[Khelder]

I used to ride my bike without using my hands because I liked the added challenge. Was it fair that others had it easier by using their hands?

Depends. Are you riding in an event where everyone is riding without using their hands?

(Yes. I am aware that technically ED, as a whole, is an event where you get to choose. A certain percentage of handless riders don't see it that way, though.)

...Besides, different players have different local communities they are matched with, or might even not see anyone else due to some misconfiguration on their router/PC/ISP. If you consider that having a different chance of meeting other players makes things unfair, then Open is inherently unfair due to the game's networking model and real world connection issues.

To be fair as you defined it though there would have to be multiple BSG's.. all depending on factors as controllers used, type of internet connection, Operating system..

The game itself does not dictate based on any of these things. The only intentional separation is between those who want to see other players and those who don't... and those who only want to see a subset of other players.

 

[Khelder]

Rearranging the furniture is sometimes all that you need. In this case, what he suggested would imply that Open is just a group like any other, without otherwise changing any functionality from the game. I doubt this would cause any issues, legal or otherwise, but (assuming that is Frontier's intent) it would make it clearer that Open won't get special treatment over Group mode.

I'm going to assume that the intent wasn't actually to make Private Groups (i.e. collections of players that require administration). That really wouldn't make a lot of sense from FD's point of view. That leaves separating Open Mode into Open PvE Mode and Open PvP Mode. Which is effectively the "add an Open PvE mode" argument. Even if FD did want to go down that path, it still doesn't resolve the "I can't challenge them face-to-face" issue.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
Even if FD did want to go down that path, it still doesn't resolve the "I can't challenge them face-to-face" issue.

I doubt anything, ever will resolve that argument.

You have instancing, you have different timezones, you have the Xbox players affecting but not being seen by PC/Mac players and vice versa.

It's really a futile discussion.

 

[Mouse]

Sorry. I'm not directly answering your question. I'm no legal expert and I try to avoid thinking about it if I can. The thought of people willing to take legal action against a game company because they changed the game (core feature or not) just infuriates me.

My main thought was that I don't think creating an "open group" would really resolve anything. You're just rearranging the furniture. The only change that would resolve the argument (I think) would be to remove PvP. Keep Open as a way to interact with others. But Open technically becomes Open PvE. That would take away the "I can't challenge them face-to-face" argument because there would no longer be any way to "challenge". It would also upset a lot of people. Which would probably lead back to the legal thing. *facepalm*



FD: "Sorry gamers, we've had to delay Horizons. We needed some additional storage to maintain surface data, but we seem to have run out. There's this thread...."

Look up the uproar that was raised over Star Wars Galaxies and Sony's stupidity over the NGE....

 

[Mouse]

Depends. Are you riding in an event where everyone is riding without using their hands?

(Yes. I am aware that technically ED, as a whole, is an event where you get to choose. A certain percentage of handless riders don't see it that way, though.)




The game itself does not dictate based on any of these things. The only intentional separation is between those who want to see other players and those who don't... and those who only want to see a subset of other players.

The game does.. ,except for controllers, they are factors of the matchmaking instancing system which dictate who you can see or not see. IF not seeing players is the "fairness" issue than they are a factor in it. Controllers I added because people with controllers vs keyboard mouse have different abilities and flight characteristics.. which is why I ask again.. how far does this "fairness" go?

 

[Mouse]

I'm going to assume that the intent wasn't actually to make Private Groups (i.e. collections of players that require administration). That really wouldn't make a lot of sense from FD's point of view. That leaves separating Open Mode into Open PvE Mode and Open PvP Mode. Which is effectively the "add an Open PvE mode" argument. Even if FD did want to go down that path, it still doesn't resolve the "I can't challenge them face-to-face" issue.

the challenge them face-to-face issue is purely a one player forcing their play style on others issue. On one side is the PVP.. other PVE.. and funny enough the PVP side claim that the BSG forces them to play someone else's way.. yet it doesn't the BSG doesn't force anyone to play anyways.. but because everyone influences the BSG some have decided to create a false argument that it does when they cannot "challenge them face-to-face".

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

We already have an Open PvE mode. It's called Mobius and it's player policed. Membership is open to everyone (hence, it's... Open!!!) but people get kicked out of it because they don't respect the rules of the community.

I just wonder what people would choose if there were all these groups with one that said "Do anything to anyone, and accept what comes - No Consequences" how many people would choose it. I say that because Open is just that, but no one actually points out that what Open means is just that - People playing without consequences.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We already have an Open PvE mode. It's called Mobius and it's player policed. Membership is open to everyone (hence, it's... Open!!!) but people get kicked out of it because they don't respect the rules of the community.

I just wonder what people would choose if there were all these groups with one that said "Do anything to anyone, and accept what comes - No Consequences" how many people would choose it. I say that because Open is just that, but no one actually points out that what Open means is just that - People playing without consequences.

By definition, Mobius Private Group is not open - it is an access controlled Private Group. Players need to know of its existence and then work out how and where to apply to join (as well as avoiding the lookee-likee groups with very similar names). Things would be a bit different, I expect, if an Open-PvE group was available from the same menu as Open / Private Group / Solo / CQC - or even if the largest Private Groups were advertised in the launcher.

.... and there are consequences in Open (as in the other two game modes) - losing a ship (maybe full of cargo / exploration data / bounty vouchers / etc. too) is not free....

 

[Khelder]

Look up the uproar that was raised over Star Wars Galaxies and Sony's stupidity over the NGE....

I'd rather not.

The game does.. ,except for controllers, they are factors of the matchmaking instancing system which dictate who you can see or not see. IF not seeing players is the "fairness" issue than they are a factor in it. Controllers I added because people with controllers vs keyboard mouse have different abilities and flight characteristics.. which is why I ask again.. how far does this "fairness" go?

The instancing system will still try its best to connect players in Open. In Solo, it won't, because it was told not to. There is no guarantee of player contact. Only possibility and best efforts.

Players in a PvP situation may face a disadvantage based on equipment, network performance, alignment of the planets, etc. Just like players in a football team might vary in age, size, speed, etc. But they are all still taking the field.

the challenge them face-to-face issue is purely a one player forcing their play style on others issue. On one side is the PVP.. other PVE.. and funny enough the PVP side claim that the BSG forces them to play someone else's way.. yet it doesn't the BSG doesn't force anyone to play anyways.. but because everyone influences the BSG some have decided to create a false argument that it does when they cannot "challenge them face-to-face".

If you want to look at it that way. While there are some that would probably insist that everyone play in Open, it seems to me that many don't really care if people play in Solo... as long as it doesn't effect their scoreline.

Yes, it is only their point of view. But I try to understand their point of view just the same as I would try to understand yours.

 

[Mouse]

I'd rather not.

It is a good example of what happens when you suddenly utterly change the core game..adding in they were going to do it even without telling player except someone broke the news 2 weeks before it went live and JUST after an expansion was released that had many advertised features that would be removed entirely and others that were going to be severely curtailed.

The instancing system will still try its best to connect players in Open. In Solo, it won't, because it was told not to. There is no guarantee of player contact. Only possibility and best efforts.

Players in a PvP situation may face a disadvantage based on equipment, network performance, alignment of the planets, etc. Just like players in a football team might vary in age, size, speed, etc. But they are all still taking the field.

All modes of ED are players taking the field.. Open is tackle, Solo is touch. The football is the BGS.

If you want to look at it that way. While there are some that would probably insist that everyone play in Open, it seems to me that many don't really care if people play in Solo... as long as it doesn't effect their scoreline.

Yes, it is only their point of view. But I try to understand their point of view just the same as I would try to understand yours.

Their argument is that solo is untouchable and that they cannot counter their actions.. which is false as they can be countered. I don't mind people's point of view...until they decide that their point of view means they can impose on others.

 

[Cmdr Bazil Yat]

I really don't understand the vitriol here, I just don't. Everyone affects everyone else's BGS... and that's probably a good thing, because if Open/Group/Solo became separated entirely, that's... 3 copies of the same data for PC users... another 3 copies for XBone users, possibly even another 3 for MAC users.

Who's going to pay for the squaring/cubing of required storage space?

You and me, ladies and mentlegen, the end users. IF you want the three modes separated THEN the game will cost more, or there'll be less in the way of features, because the money that would have paid for the developers to do their job is, instead, being used to keep between six and nine complete copies of almost-identical data.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I really don't understand the vitriol here, I just don't. Everyone affects everyone else's BGS... and that's probably a good thing, because if Open/Group/Solo became separated entirely, that's... 3 copies of the same data for PC users... another 3 copies for XBone users, possibly even another 3 for MAC users.

Who's going to pay for the squaring/cubing of required storage space?

You and me, ladies and mentlegen, the end users. IF you want the three modes separated THEN the game will cost more, or there'll be less in the way of features, because the money that would have paid for the developers to do their job is, instead, being used to keep between six and nine complete copies of almost-identical data.

You forgot the extra multiplication for Horizon's purchasers.

<Puts up collar and strolls out nonchalantly in to the rain...>

 

[Jockey79]

I really don't understand the vitriol here, I just don't. Everyone affects everyone else's BGS... and that's probably a good thing, because if Open/Group/Solo became separated entirely, that's... 3 copies of the same data for PC users... another 3 copies for XBone users, possibly even another 3 for MAC users.

Who's going to pay for the squaring/cubing of required storage space?

You and me, ladies and mentlegen, the end users. IF you want the three modes separated THEN the game will cost more, or there'll be less in the way of features, because the money that would have paid for the developers to do their job is, instead, being used to keep between six and nine complete copies of almost-identical data.

Almost right;

PC/Mac are combined, so only 3 copies needed for the BGS there.
XBox One only has Open and Solo (No Groups), so only 2 needed there.

So 5 copies of the BGS would be needed so far. No including plans for PS4 and the Linux community have asked about a native Linux version.
And some folks are still asking for an Offline mode as well.

If the Dev were to listen to the forums, they'd become stretched so thin, nothing else would ever get done / added.
No more BGS stories, not with at lease 5 to write. No more add ons due to the number of platforms to write them for and not enough programmers to do it.
All for one off payments each time of £40 - which players are also moaning about despite they get a full year of updates for it.

- - - Updated - - -

You forgot the extra multiplication for Horizon's purchasers.

<Puts up collar and strolls out nonchalantly in to the rain...>

That does not split the BGS, just fences some of it off.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
So 5 copies of the BGS would be needed so far. …

With multiple BGSs we would get threads demanding that Private Group X shouldn't be able to affect Private Group Y …

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not in your mode, affecting your BGS.

 

[Jockey79]

With multiple BGSs we would get threads demanding that Private Group X shouldn't be able to affect Private Group Y …

Oh don't, the number of splits my mind can come up with;

PC
Open - PvE
Open - PvP
RP - PvE
RP - PvP
Mobius
EDC
Hutton Truckers
Light Knights (my gaming community - pc only)
The Wandering Wallies (the other community I'm part of - also pc only)
+any more who want their own

Mac (Why should they be forced to share with PC and XB1 does not have to);
Open - PvE
Open - PvP
RP - PvE
RP - PvP
Mobius
EDC
Hutton Truckers

XBox;
Open - PvE
Open - PvP
RP - PvE
RP - PvP
+ Demand for their own Private group option being added

There is 18 BGS needed off the top of my head not including a possible PS4 and Linux versions which would be about 11 more (31 minimum from this example)

Fuel Rats would struggle to help, but could just about manage it.
The Code think they have problems finding targets now, wait for the cascading effects of a BGS split.
The Devs couldn't write stories / events for that many BGS going on, so they all would stagnate.
Plus the fencing off of content via add ons would create splits in their own BGS as well - like with Horizons and not being able to follow someone if they land and you cannot.

If Frontier were to create just 1 BGS split for any reason, it would open the floodgates for the above to happen.
And I'd be the first to shout up for the communities I'm part of to get their own.

 

[Majinvash]

Oh don't, the number of splits my mind can come up with;

PC
Open - PvE
Open - PvP
RP - PvE
RP - PvP
Mobius
EDC
Hutton Truckers
Light Knights (my gaming community - pc only)
The Wandering Wallies (the other community I'm part of - also pc only)
+any more who want their own

Mac (Why should they be forced to share with PC and XB1 does not have to);
Open - PvE
Open - PvP
RP - PvE
RP - PvP
Mobius
EDC
Hutton Truckers

XBox;
Open - PvE
Open - PvP
RP - PvE
RP - PvP
+ Demand for their own Private group option being added

There is 18 BGS needed off the top of my head not including a possible PS4 and Linux versions which would be about 11 more (31 minimum from this example)

Fuel Rats would struggle to help, but could just about manage it.
The Code think they have problems finding targets now, wait for the cascading effects of a BGS split.
The Devs couldn't write stories / events for that many BGS going on, so they all would stagnate.
Plus the fencing off of content via add ons would create splits in their own BGS as well - like with Horizons and not being able to follow someone if they land and you cannot.

If Frontier were to create just 1 BGS split for any reason, it would open the floodgates for the above to happen.
And I'd be the first to shout up for the communities I'm part of to get their own.

You are over thinking it.

You would only need 3 BSG's and just run them over the formats. I cannot see anyone in a chosen mode being upset about what XBone or Mac is doing. The issues comes from the perceived "hiding" in another mode that you cannot counter effect directly.

The game would be a lot better with 3 locked modes.

Open
Open PVE
Solo

Seeing as PVP in Open PVE wouldn't happen, its pretty much on the same par as private groups. As you cannot directly effect others players. So who cares if you can wave at them.

Private groups if they did still existed, do not get BSG's as that is just extra work that wouldn't need to be done. Quick frankly its greedy!

This would then allow the ability to have locked save files to YOUR mode of choice.

Whether is working as intended or not, the only reason to mode switch is to avoid something. Otherwise no one would have an issue with Open.

It would end up with a much better community and a reduction in exploitation of game features.

You chose your mode, you know what to expect.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

Also The Code still has plenty of targets, the salt mining is going well.

 

[Mouse]

You are over thinking it.

You would only need 3 BSG's and just run them over the formats. I cannot see anyone in a chosen mode being upset about what XBone or Mac is doing. The issues comes from the perceived "hiding" in another mode that you cannot counter effect directly.

The game would be a lot better with 3 locked modes.

Open
Open PVE
Solo

Seeing as PVP in Open PVE wouldn't happen, its pretty much on the same par as private groups. As you cannot directly effect others players. So who cares if you can wave at them.

Private groups if they did still existed, do not get BSG's as that is just extra work that wouldn't need to be done. Quick frankly its greedy!

This would then allow the ability to have locked save files to YOUR mode of choice.

Whether is working as intended or not, the only reason to mode switch is to avoid something. Otherwise no one would have an issue with Open.

It would end up with a much better community and a reduction in exploitation of game features.

You chose your mode, you know what to expect.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

Also The Code still has plenty of targets, the salt mining is going well.

I think it is rather funny to accuse private groups of being greedy if the above scenario ever came into existence when it is exactly what the open advocates have been greedy for all this time. A huge expenditure of effort for the satisfaction of a portion of the player base who think they are special.. and you think private groups would be the ones being greedy..

LMAO.

 

[Theodrid]

The game would be a lot better with 3 locked modes.

Open
Open PVE
Solo

Frontier and a large portion of the community disagree with you.

Whether is working as intended or not, the only reason to mode switch is to avoid something. Otherwise no one would have an issue with Open.

There are many reasons why people may choose to operate in one mode one day and another the next, you know this, you are just trying to be provocative, (as usual), with your 'avoid' reference.

It would end up with a much better community and a reduction in exploitation of game features.

Putting getting lectured on exploitation by CODE members aside, again, Frontier and a large portion of the player base disagree, very often it has little to do with exploitation and more to do with circumstance, mood, and a wide variety of other things.