Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Dave1235]

That whole thread has been weird.

As Faded pointed out, some of those names came here and told mode switchers to get better - now it applies to them, it is another story.

Frog has had me in fits though, some of that humour would brighten this place up

Mmm I really need to read more, now you got me interested.

Yeah, the Frogs are funny guys, they have literally made me Lol a few times in a good way, there was a youtube that Kermit was in a while back, it was a news channel thing, I watched a few of their videos and they do know how to have a laugh. Now if only they will do as they are told it will all be good , if not, well they have been warned .

Whatya mean there are lots of them and I will need more than 3 people, there are 4 of us now , let them roll the dice .

ETA

JK

 

[relayer]

ninja'd!

 

[relayer]

Ninja'd again, by damme!

 

[Roybe]

Quick on topic question that I have been mulling over.

The change to the shield cells heat and the module warm up period when you switch them on.

FD have said it was to get people to use the cells as they intended them to be used, it would seem a lot of people don't like it pre testing. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=199155

Now I read some posts in the Beta threads too that said FD had over done it with the heat etc, I will try to take a look later in game.

Do you think this is just FD being FD, remember the "great gimbal debate" in Beta, they went from one extreme to the other. Do they want to make fights over quicker, balance things they think are OP or something else.

If its to stop cell spamming it will speed up fights, which will reduce PVP fighting time per rebuy / win.

I might be squinting a bit, but does anyone else see this as a minor shift away from PVP (now we have CQC for that). Making PVP more costly / dangerous.

That old "rare and meaningful" keeps rattling around in my head, I suppose we have it in a way in private groups but I thought that quote referred to open, if someone can point me to the "rare and meaningful" quote I would appreciate it, I would like to read it again in context.

In my Python I now have 2 SCB (before the AI got better 1 was enough), they are small and I fire them together (if shields charged a bit quicker 1 would still be enough), normally when running away and not firing so heat is lower, for pew pew's they will be using them whilst they are still fighting and generating heat.

TLDR

Do you think the changes to shield cells are FD getting back to the original plan of "rare and meaningful" or something else?

I was going to drop this in one of the SCB threads...because, it does seem, on its face to be 'walking back' PVP...however, this might also be because the SCB issue was so out of whack.

My only issue with the folks that are having problems are making a couple of improper logical assumptions that Michael Brookes himself has said are fallacious.

There will be some balancing going on...this is a 3-5 week beta...on top of the Horizon beta (the devs have clearly stated that 1.5 will release WITH Horizons...not before it!).

People need to play this as a beta and not a finished product...if you think the devs are breaking something or it is broken...get in the beta and prove it!

 

[relayer]

Tra la la

I have always questioned the use of SCBs - if they are capable of creating enough energy to recharge a ship's shields, I'd expect them to get AT LEAST hellaciously hot doing so. Perhaps allowing 1 or 2, but seriously, these are "magic potions" and "mana" at this point.

It's also made me chuckle when "open guys" cram their ships with SCBs and the whole battle is about who has the most magic potions. Tactics? Strategy? None. Just two palookas flailing about and who runs first.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
My only issue with the folks that are having problems are making a couple of improper logical assumptions that Michael Brookes himself has said are fallacious.
…

Could you explain this in simple English for those who don't are native English speakers (like me)? I don't understand that sentence.

The way I understand the comments from Michael and Sandro in the latest dev update is that they aren't happy with the way combat and SCBs currently work (big multirole ships being better combat ships than dedicated combat ships, shields and SCBs being the deciding factor of a combat). I could be wrong about that interpretation of their comments as a result of wishful thinking on my part.

The problem with SCBs in my opinion is, that they are a complicated way to solve a problem and that they introduce other problems.
From what I've read I think SCBs are meant to solve the problem that combat was/is to fast. I'm not quite sure why SCBs got introduced and why the devs didn't simply make the shields stronger.
SCBs make combat ships worse ships in combat than multipurpose ships.
They restrict the variety of ship builds as every ship that could face combat (against other players; NPCs don't spam SCBs) needs to stack SCBs and therefore needs a lot of internal compartments.
SCBs require the use of burst damage to be able to drop the shields before the next SCB can be effective.
All this results in dogfighting not being the best method of combat. Flying backwards and spamming SCBs is a very good method in combat in it's current SCB spam heaven.

In my opinion SCBs are the (wrong) answer to a PvP problem caused by PvE design (gimbaled weapons and turreted weapons). With stronger shields (and better armor protection) and with gimbaled weapons that have a reduced movement and turreted weapons only available for large hard points there would be no need for SCBs in PvP. PvP combat would be more about the flying skill of the player and not about perfect SCB activation timing.

The next problem, and in my opinion the bigger problem, is the activation delay for turned off modules. This will mostly hurt combat ships as they are extremely power restricted. This might result in combat ships having no other option than to stay in combat till the end and it will make speed even more important. Everything that can't at least constantly boost at 400 m/s will be a flying coffin in Open Mode. It will make a lot of optimized combat ship loadouts impractical to use as those builds often rely on a lot of vital modules getting turned off on deploying hardpoints.

We will see how this changes will affect the game and PvP. Good PvP players will adapt and find something different to win the fights. If those changes have the result I think the developers want them to have, then this could make Open Mode more interesting for some players (myself included).

As you wrote, it's a beta and a lot of adjustments or changes can happen until release. We will see.

 

[Roybe]

Could you explain this in simple English for those who don't are native English speakers (like me)? I don't understand that sentence.

Many of the people that are unhappy are basing their opinions on things that are not true. 'E: D is based on PVP...and without PVP players the game will die.' is not a true statement. In the SCB controversy, anyone stating something as fact (making a declarative statement), in general, 3 days after the release of a beta...where the devs have not had time to digest the metrics...is not being helpful, at this point.

There were a lot of changes that occurred in the past because of this type of discussion, like the price of the Vulture, that in retrospect, was correctly priced during beta. This seems to be a similar situation...the numbers might need to be massaged...but the idea of what they are doing is solid.

 

[Benedictus]

Sorry for my english - Next Question:

Excuse me if I disturb you in your lively discussion again.

Please do not be angry with me when I make suggestions. I am not quite satisfied with the simulation. On the one hand FD wants the Immersion and Interaction in the Space Simulation. Thats their marketing strategy. On the other hand it is prevented by the network infrastructure. The game degenerates thereby to a pure PVE / Grinding game. At first it is exciting. As beginner it takes time to find your way. This can be best if the risks are minimized. But later it is long-winded. CQC is not a viable substitute for the need for challenges in the Galaxy. The Galaxy in Elite DANGEROUS. I hope that once the players were finally able to agree among themselves that also FD will be ready to make concessions. So, here now my suggestion. It is not a new development. Let us talk about it. Sorry for my bad english:

 

[Roybe]

Excuse me if I disturb you in your lively discussion again.

Please do not be angry with me when I make suggestions. I am not quite satisfied with the simulation. On the one hand FD wants the Immersion and Interaction in the Space Simulation. Thats their marketing strategy. On the other hand it is prevented by the network infrastructure. The game degenerates thereby to a pure PVE / Grinding game. At first it is exciting. As beginner it takes time to find your way. This can be best if the risks are minimized. But later it is long-winded. CQC is not a viable substitute for the need for challenges in the Galaxy. The Galaxy in Elite DANGEROUS. I hope that once the players were finally able to agree among themselves that also FD will be ready to make concessions. So, here now my suggestion. It is not a new development. Let us talk about it. Sorry for my bad english:

View attachment 76195

The game doesn't 'degenerate' to this....the only way to have a balanced playing field for all the modes is to make the game...in this manner. Giving one mode benefits over any other will break the balance between the modes. Which would mean it could be better to own the PC version over the Xbone version...or vice versa.

The game is designed as a PVE collection race, either against time, or other players...or, as you so aptly put it, a grinding game. Welcome to E: D!

Also the game was advertised to offer 3 different ways to play...we actually have your model...except the choice is made at the very beginning of your play time..rather than during the play time...there is no difference!

 

[Seonid]

This can be best if the risks are minimized.

Your basic assumption is flawed. You are assuming that the choice of game mode is related to what you personally class as "risk", that is false and as a result, everything you derive from that assumption will also be false. Easy example: a friend of mine plays in a Private Group with his 8 year old son, why do you think they do that? Hint: it's nothing to do with PvP...

Edit: Another easy example: I play in Open except when working away and I'm on crap hotel wifi which can only support the low bandwidth used by Solo. Under your system I would not be able to play the game I paid for. Is that right?

 

[Lestenio]

Excuse me if I disturb you in your lively discussion again.

Please do not be angry with me when I make suggestions. I am not quite satisfied with the simulation. On the one hand FD wants the Immersion and Interaction in the Space Simulation. Thats their marketing strategy. On the other hand it is prevented by the network infrastructure. The game degenerates thereby to a pure PVE / Grinding game. At first it is exciting. As beginner it takes time to find your way. This can be best if the risks are minimized. But later it is long-winded. CQC is not a viable substitute for the need for challenges in the Galaxy. The Galaxy in Elite DANGEROUS. I hope that once the players were finally able to agree among themselves that also FD will be ready to make concessions. So, here now my suggestion. It is not a new development. Let us talk about it. Sorry for my bad english:

I don't understand your motives for wanting to change the BGS. Is it simply so you can see a couple of hollow squares on the scanner? What's the point of forcing people into open if you can't interact with them? You'll have unhappy solo players disillusioned because they are having their game experienced ruined, and you'll have PvP players annoyed because they get put in to instances with players they can't interact with. I'm failing to see how any of this benefits the game in any way. It hardly makes it any more DANGEROUS (named after pilots federation rank btw, not because the game is dangerous).

 

[Benedictus]

What's about this?

View attachment 75890

I don't understand your motives for wanting to change the BGS. Is it simply so you can see a couple of hollow squares on the scanner? What's the point of forcing people into open if you can't interact with them? You'll have unhappy solo players disillusioned because they are having their game experienced ruined, and you'll have PvP players annoyed because they get put in to instances with players they can't interact with. I'm failing to see how any of this benefits the game in any way. It hardly makes it any more DANGEROUS (named after pilots federation rank btw, not because the game is dangerous).

Ok I understand
The first suggestion (see above) I had was better. The solution does not force any. The one who selects the second Open, does not have to reckon with the invisible influence of other modes. Probably but with invisible influences from other instances of the same mode.

 

[Lestenio]

Ok I understand
The first suggestion (see above) I had was better. The solution does not force any. The one who selects the second Open, does not have to reckon with the invisible influence of other modes. Probably but with invisible influences from other instances of the same mode.

What are your motivations behind the changes?
If you are a PvP player supporting a power. Would you rather be matched with players you can interact with, or players that you can't?

 

[Phosphora]

Ok I understand
The first suggestion (see above) I had was better. The solution does not force any. The one who selects the second Open, does not have to reckon with the invisible influence of other modes. Probably but with invisible influences from other instances of the same mode.

What would stop someone selecting 'the second' Open, and tweaking their router to avoid contact with others?

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Benedictus]

What are your motivations behind the changes?
If you are a PvP player supporting a power. Would you rather be matched with players you can interact with, or players that you can't?

The change has a motivation and a number of reasons:
- PVP
- Minor Factions / conquering of systems
- Community Goals
- Powerplay
- Clan Gameplay

In any of these sorts of gameplay the influences of non-visible players from other modes are a disadvantage. The Open-only players are the only group who are disadvantaged in ED. All others have their fun at the expense of open-Only Players

- - - Updated - - -

What would stop someone selecting 'the second' Open, and tweaking their router to avoid contact with others?

Cheers, Phos.

You mean the problem with the instances within one mode. Yes, I have no solution for this.

 

[Roybe]

The change has a motivation and a number of reasons:
- PVP
- Minor Factions / conquering of systems
- Community Goals
- Powerplay
- Clan Gameplay

In any of these sorts of gameplay the influences of non-visible players from other modes are a disadvantage. The Open-only players are the only group who are disadvantaged in ED. All others have their fun at the expense of open-Only Players

- - - Updated - - -




You mean the problem with the instances within one mode. Yes, I have no solution for this.

How do you plan on handling the Xbone players in this model?

- - - Updated - - -

The change has a motivation and a number of reasons:
- PVP
- Minor Factions / conquering of systems
- Community Goals
- Powerplay
- Clan Gameplay

In any of these sorts of gameplay the influences of non-visible players from other modes are a disadvantage. The Open-only players are the only group who are disadvantaged in ED. All others have their fun at the expense of open-Only Players

- - - Updated - - -




You mean the problem with the instances within one mode. Yes, I have no solution for this.

As someone that has played all the above...there is no 'disadvantage' it's just like playing any other game where things change...it doesn't matter who is doing it...it happens and you either collect harder or you lose....it might be an AI change, it might be a bug, it might be a band of people against you. If the numbers are moving against you...do more or die.

 

[Benedictus]

How do you plan on handling the Xbone players in this model?

Uh ... no idea. Can not everything remain as it is in the XBOX Player Galaxy? These do not even complain.

 

[Jockey79]

Uh ... no idea. Can not everything remain as it is in the XBOX Player Galaxy? These do not even complain.

They don't have their own "galaxy", they use the same one as us.

 

[Roybe]

Uh ... no idea. Can not everything remain as it is in the XBOX Player Galaxy? These do not even complain.

They play with us...just like solo players....and this is why we have these discussions...people want to change things without understanding how the game works.

 

[Benedictus]

How do you plan on handling the Xbone players in this model?

- - - Updated - - -



As someone that has played all the above...there is no 'disadvantage' it's just like playing any other game where things change...it doesn't matter who is doing it...it happens and you either collect harder or you lose....it might be an AI change, it might be a bug, it might be a band of people against you. If the numbers are moving against you...do more or die.

The game is advertised as a sandbox and multiplayer game. So I'm not assuming that there is a deception of the consumer. I know that the game revolves mainly around Grinding in a safe PVE. But there are also players who want more interaction in a multiplayer game than with NPC and the shifting of bar graphs (see Eve Online).

- - - Updated - - -

They play with us...just like solo players....and this is why we have these discussions...people want to change things without understanding how the game works.

Sure, than theyy have to get the same possibilities