Meh, another non-post.
Let's get one thing straight.
- Thread starter Bacalao
- Start date
Meh, another non-post.
Many fine games have been slowly ruined by pandering to vocal PvP minorities. Attempting to balance around PvP always makes things worse.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Not quite, Jypson me old. While you're in solo or group I can't pew pew you from open. This is a big deal to some open players, who believe the one true mode should get even more preferential treatment than it already does to compensate them for choosing it. If you get to play by yourself, or in the company of friends, then you should be penalised for denying open players their entirely justified and totally fair pew pew quota.
I'm quite interested in the BGS and PP, as well as how player actions open up or close down gameplay options. I can't see any advantage in solo or group beyond giving you the entirely reasonable choice of who to play with. The notion that you're immune to interdiction and therefore more effective in PP or BGS operations is a straw man- anyone wasting time and resources on interdiction has given up far more than they can gain, the action is self defeating. If PP was played entirely in open no-one wanting to win would waste time interdicting when they could be undermining/reinforcing instead. Sandros suggestions came on the back of the large number of PP players choosing solo, not their effectiveness vs a similar number of players remaining in open. Perhaps they saw some advantage that I don't, but my personal opinion is that the player predisposed to PP is one who is less likely to see value in the many attractions of open. Player interactions would be seen as an unwelcome distraction, rather than a potentially fun and rewarding surprise. The OPs post reinforces that opinion. He's not 'hiding' by not wanting the noisy crowd getting on his nerves when all he wants to do is play his own game.
I'm not paid to be other people's dynamic content. Their wishes and desires are theirs alone and carry no force. If people want to shoot each other then they can. If people don't want that gameplay they don't have to.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I played the various forms of Elite for 10 years solo, without getting bored. The argument that the games longevity demand I make a target of myself is a weightless assertion. I backed this game with my own money for the solo game. The equal solo game.
Sure, that's next to impossible to do.
When I say balance for open I don't mean balance for PvP, sure balance for the *risk of PvP* but, for example, I'm not of the opinion they should be balancing weapons, combat etc.. around the PvP meta, in the end a minority do core PvP.
Player interaction does not mean you stand there defenseless while someone shoots you, I'd hope Frontier's scope for gameplay under that category is a wee bit wider than that, it certainly is right now.
None of the examples I've provided involved anyone being shot at. And even with being shot at, there's no reason it has to be someone standing there being non-consensually pew pew'd. Believe it or not combat can actually be fun, a lot of work went into getting ED's combat model right.
Last edited:
Its interesting how every thread almost immediately reverts to the same identity as the other threads, yet has different participants... strange.
I would like to say however that adding "in your opinion" is pretty redundant anyway, I mean I would think its a fair assumption somebody is expressing their opinion unless they state otherwise right?
I mean these arguments always come down to the same things right?
Jypson if they buff open in a PP capacity it doesn't make the other modes sub-standard, they currently aren't equal and there are some cheesy things that people have to take advantage of to get anything done in some circumstances, mainly orientated around CGs or PP.
I actually like the argument about how open has additional time spent developing content on it and is favoured in those terms, I've not actually read that one before and is genuinely a good point.
Askavir you won't see people moaning about open effecting their solo because its not a two-way system. Open want to have players, solo by its very definition doesn't, having no players only effects one of these so its really obvious why you only get people in open complaining about the population in open.
I also wouldn't make comparisons to religious zealots primarily because both groups are just as bad. You say they want to impose their ways onto others because they believe their way is the true way, but your doing exactly the same thing, unless they are going all the way to removing solo mode which really is imposing their way.
Like set aside the dangerous precedent argument for a second, if you play solo but they buff power-play in open, it has had absolutely no impact on your game whatsoever. I actually think the idea that they should be spending time on content that works for all three modes is actually the best argument i've heard against a buff flat out.
I would like to say however that adding "in your opinion" is pretty redundant anyway, I mean I would think its a fair assumption somebody is expressing their opinion unless they state otherwise right?
I mean these arguments always come down to the same things right?
Jypson if they buff open in a PP capacity it doesn't make the other modes sub-standard, they currently aren't equal and there are some cheesy things that people have to take advantage of to get anything done in some circumstances, mainly orientated around CGs or PP.
I actually like the argument about how open has additional time spent developing content on it and is favoured in those terms, I've not actually read that one before and is genuinely a good point.
Askavir you won't see people moaning about open effecting their solo because its not a two-way system. Open want to have players, solo by its very definition doesn't, having no players only effects one of these so its really obvious why you only get people in open complaining about the population in open.
I also wouldn't make comparisons to religious zealots primarily because both groups are just as bad. You say they want to impose their ways onto others because they believe their way is the true way, but your doing exactly the same thing, unless they are going all the way to removing solo mode which really is imposing their way.
Like set aside the dangerous precedent argument for a second, if you play solo but they buff power-play in open, it has had absolutely no impact on your game whatsoever. I actually think the idea that they should be spending time on content that works for all three modes is actually the best argument i've heard against a buff flat out.
Great post, OP. I've always preferred cooperative or PvE gameplay to PvP and I'm old enough to have played the original Elite when it came out. I have never been one who enjoys fighting others for any reason, even in most FPS games. I've had my fill of that sort of crap in real life long ago and certainly don't need it in a virtual environment. Others may, and that's fine. You don't see most CoD players complaining that people play Civilization, and winging on about how we can encourage those gamers to play CoD. AT least, you don't see it very often, if it happens at all! The funny thing about the PvP crowd, though, is how vociferous they are in every game about how much more fun everything would be if only everyone could PvP at any time, forgetting that for many players PvP just isn't fun. Just as with extroverts vs introverts, however, there isn't anything to "fix" there. What's important is that some of us who don't enjoy that speak up and remind the various developers that forcing (and "encouraging" it really is forcing, most of the time) PvP on those of us who don't want to engage in it will serve only to drive us away. Some devs listen, others not so much. That's what drove me away from Eve Online eventually, though, and what keeps me from staying when I do peek in here and there.
You have this wrong. Wisdom comes from learning from one's experiences. The only thing that comes from age is, well, age. That age and wisdom often come along at the same time is simply one of the best examples I know of correlation not indicating causation.Yeah, me too .. supposedly wisdom comes with age but I wonder when that's going to happen
I have no interest in interacting with other players. Certainly not without the whole standard Mmo package of guilds and the like Frontier have explicitly ruled out.
Interacting with other players is, as the OP states, a big fat negative.
I've played Lotro and that was a fun thing as I was in a great guild and PvP was both limited and voluntary. Star Trek and Guild Wars I predominantly play solo. I'm just not interested in communicating with, being shot at or shooting strangers. I'm here to have my own adventure.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
People in Open affect other modes. The only difference is the rest of us don't think it's our right to shoot them for it.
[woah] This is fascinating point. Mind blown.
Twas a joke? Who would seriously rate someone as combat logger for playing in solo?
It would be Elite Dangerous Lite, though you would of course keep your CMDR badge, because that is precious to you.
And why not restrict certain aspects of the game in Solo?
It prevents so many exploits in the background Sim. I take it you don't know much about the background Sim and how it works?
I'd say because the game was advertised to us as having Solo being as it is.
I'm unfamiliar with what these exploits you're talking about are. Do you have a link to them? So far as I know, affecting the background sim via SOlo isn't any more an exploit than mode switching to stack missions is. Regardless, anything that restricts solo significantly will open Frontier up to legal action, which considering they're a UK company and therefore subject to consumer protection laws much more strict than the US has, is actually a valid concern.
Last edited:
Being late to this party, please excuse me for jumping to the end after reading every post up to page 5 (and giving rep where due).
Anyone who espouses forcing players into open cannot be taken seriously by anyone other than those who feel entitled to be a general Richard Cranium to other players. What other motive can there be?
Oh! I’ve got it! You feel compelled to force me to be introduced to what a wonderful person you are. Yeah. That’s the ticket.
Anyone who espouses forcing players into open cannot be taken seriously by anyone other than those who feel entitled to be a general Richard Cranium to other players. What other motive can there be?
Oh! I’ve got it! You feel compelled to force me to be introduced to what a wonderful person you are. Yeah. That’s the ticket.
It's exploit in a similar manner to mode switching.
Players doing Powerplay (or opposition BGS) switch to solo/PG since they can then affect the game without any risk of being opposed.
Sandro suggests a *significant* number of players do this.
The argument is that if people are switching to one mode to reduce risk then this should be offset somehow, perhaps with higher reward to counter taking on an increased risk. Otherwise people in one mode have an unfair advantage over players in another mode.
At the core the suggestion is that if the vast majority of people are switching to a certain mode solely for one activity then this would be indicative of an imbalance. I tend to agree with this.
I think the suggestion is to reward open, not restrict solo.
TBH though the "lawsuit you will pay" thing gets chucked around a lot. Take it with a pinch of salt.
Last edited:
Please, ease to five, mate. It's a friendly discussion so far; most similar discussions get locked when the arguments become heated or circular. The OP made valid points, some posters have made valid rejoinders and some others have expanded on the ops points. It's all been very civilised so far and we're still reading new or alternative viewpoints. Insisting that someone is ignorant of game mechanics without actually offering your understanding of same isn't carrying the conversation forward, it's likely to shut it down. I think that would be a shame.
Could you describe what you see as exploits? If you want to restrict the options available to other players they must be pretty substantial?
You're not wrong! I'd be on a lawyers wage myself if I had a fiver for every time I read someone on a game forum announce the imminent possibility of a lawsuit!So, in other words, not an exploit at all. The devs have stated clearly that, while mode switching isn't precisely in the spirit of their intent it is in no way an exploit. Considering Solo isn't even going that far, your point is completely invalid. It's well within the design of the game, for crying out loud. You not liking it doesn't make it an exploit.
Again, just because a significant number of people do something doesn't mean that's what's broken. As many of us are doing it in solo is explicitly to avoid the greifing by others, then the root of the problem isn't where you seem to think it is. Once again, players choosing to engage in behavior the game is explicitly designed to have is pretty much the opposite of an exploit.
I disagree. Refusing to keep them at parity would be a major problem for many of us. That a significant number of players choose to go into Solo only reinforces this point. Those who want a reward in Open are free to go to Solo if they don't like the level of risk vs reward. The way it is now is clearly not as big a deal a sa vocal minority may make it seem.
Actually, I follow legal matters as a hobby. It's an odd hobby, as I am not an attorney, but such is my life. I've read a large number of legal decisions and complaints as well as researched the laws underlying them. There is a real risk of a lawsuit in the UK should something like you are suggesting occur. It wouldn't be an issue, legally speaking, in the US necessarily (that'd be a state by state thing, really) but in the UK it most certainly would be a real risk. I'd really rather not see Frontier put themselves at risk in any way, since I very much enjoy the game.
Anyhow, I see no point in continuing to debate this with you. We disagree and that's fine; we're both entitled to our opinions. It's a pretty established fact, after all, that only a small percentage of players of most games choose to engage in forum discussion. Among those who do, there is a large contingent of folks who only post when they have a problem or when they have a complaint of some sort. I see it as quite important that Frontier hear from at least some of us who are perfectly happy to play the game as things are. If this were an Open Only sort of game, or one where Solo was particularly restricted in some manner, I'd stop playing it.
Fly safe.
Excuse me?
Personally, I've pretty much stopped playing in open these days. I'll jump in occasionally but meh... I find it breaks my immersion and generally annoys me. I like things to make sense. I'd consider shooting a player if he's with the wrong faction. I'd be likely to pop his hatch he was loaded with Palladium. I'd definitely go after him if I saw a 1 million bounty on his head. Taking on a player is a high risk affair, and if there's no credits or rewards at the end of the rainbow, it no longer makes sense to me: I'll find greener pastures. Likewise, I don't mind when a rival faction drives me out of the system. I don't mind when a pirate pops my hatch and scoops my Motrona Experience Jelly. I don't mind when someone takes me down to collect the bounty on my head.
The thing I don't want to deal with is the small group of players who enjoy random attacks for no reason. There's no bounty, no cargo, no faction rivalry... there's only "because". It's the pointless ganks that annoy me. At best it's high risk for no reward. At worst it's low risk for no reward; it depresses me to no end when I see a fully kitted FDL hanging around a RES loaded up with beams and missiles, waiting for some poor schmuck in a viper to lose his shields so he can spend 10,000 credits in missiles to get an easy kill for no reason or reward.
Obviously it's is a rather small fraction of the open players that engage in this sort of thing. The majority are rather agreeable people. It's the few that ruin it for me. As much as I like to play i open, the rewards aren't great enough to compensate for the annoyance and frustration. It's a real shame as I always enjoyed the threat of pirates and bounty hunters, and I'd like to enjoy powerplay with the threat of players on the opposing faction. Unfortunately, for every pirate or bounty hunter in open, there's three gankers, and I don't have the patience to deal with them.
The thing I don't want to deal with is the small group of players who enjoy random attacks for no reason. There's no bounty, no cargo, no faction rivalry... there's only "because". It's the pointless ganks that annoy me. At best it's high risk for no reward. At worst it's low risk for no reward; it depresses me to no end when I see a fully kitted FDL hanging around a RES loaded up with beams and missiles, waiting for some poor schmuck in a viper to lose his shields so he can spend 10,000 credits in missiles to get an easy kill for no reason or reward.
Obviously it's is a rather small fraction of the open players that engage in this sort of thing. The majority are rather agreeable people. It's the few that ruin it for me. As much as I like to play i open, the rewards aren't great enough to compensate for the annoyance and frustration. It's a real shame as I always enjoyed the threat of pirates and bounty hunters, and I'd like to enjoy powerplay with the threat of players on the opposing faction. Unfortunately, for every pirate or bounty hunter in open, there's three gankers, and I don't have the patience to deal with them.
Last edited:
You can't force me into open any more than you can force me into your mom's basement to look at your fedora collection. Just not gonna happen.
Fedora collection? I might wanna see that.
I think the primary issue with the different modes is little more than, people just want to play with other people (the MMO experience) without risking what they're playing for, without "being forced" into the "unfairness" of PvP, without the worry of PvP interaction, without having your cargo stolen by players who are simply too lazy to do their own trading, without the griefing... well the list can go on, I think you get the point. I play in solo to avoid PvP, I'm not playing this game for PvP, I'm not interested in PvP, and the PvP is unbalanced, I played open once for 3 hours a little after the game first came out. I was harassed by 7 different players, blown up by 5, pirated by 4, helped by 1, and interdicted 22 times in 1 system by 1 player. Since this experience, I haven't even thought about open, in fact I fight against open purely due to PvP. Granted things have changed since then, but not really, there are just far far far far fewer players in open now than there was then, the overall mechanics and attitude hasn't changed, those players still exist, this is why I play solo and fight against open. I want open, just without the ish behavior of PEOPLE, after all, people are by far the worst aspect of humanity... ironic huh?