This is not about Solo vs Open but about how strange this design decision is.
- Thread starter Xender
- Start date
- Status
lol, I'm so glad I know what the topic is about
hehehe so easy to misinterpret without context
unfortunately, perhaps due to yhe chess thing 'white king being unreachable' you ARE doing a 'solo shouldnt exist' thread. chess is not the right analogy. in chess there are only two players. and its the PLAYERS you should have been concentrating on, not the game.
in the chess analogy, there is a giant chess game, or perhaps Go would be better game to use - it seems to have a bigger board and many more pieces. each side has players who are jointly responsible for EACH piece. other groups of players move the other pieces - because players can only be in one place at a time. occasionally two of the pieces become VERY critical - this is a community goal. heres a vital piece - THE OPEN PLAYERS CAN TRY TO STOP EACH OTHER DIRECTLY BY COMBAT from moving their single piece. other open players can try to move the piece by eliminating open players directly who are trying to stop it. but it is only one piece.
then you say that SOME players ON BOTH SIDES are in solo. you can only see their effects on pieces where the piece moves but there dont seem to be many players doing it. you cant see the solo players joining the npcs contributing to the piece moving in powerplay, or a CG - nor can you see the players opposing the move in solo and neither of them ever see each other in combat and nor do the players in open.
see what i mean? you make it appear as if one solo player can singlehandedly undo everything all the open players are doing with no risk. that simply isnt so. the npcs are much more dangerous still, although no longer totally impossible to survive being attacked with like after engineers luckily. and there are players you dont see on your side in solo too. it evens out.
so yes, its working properly. if people in open dont see anyone at a cg its a grave error to assume that means they have no chance to 'win' or that everyone is in private groups or solo. and even if they are its not just on the other side from you.
Yeah, shouldn't this be in here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...en-v-Solo-v-Groups-thread-IV-Hotel-California
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...en-v-Solo-v-Groups-thread-IV-Hotel-California
Haha I read this thread and immediately thought of a stockmarket trader analogy.
Clearly the PvP types prefer to be in an open cry pit, where they can simply resort to punching opponents in the faces to silence, and stop them trading... and profit. Probably hate the fact that traders these days can now easily trade from the safety of their own homes, and thus denying the more thuggish ones the ability to resort to violence to being able to get first dibs
OP is saying... I must be allowed to punch you in the face, break your jaw to shut you up so I can get a chance of buying vodafone shares for 28.97.... else it's just not fair!!
-back to teh coffee-
http://resources1.news.com.au/image...5613-928ea51c-c126-11e3-9a65-7ae3511942af.jpg
Just look at EVE Online, how well designed game it is. How advanced and living. It is true meaning of sandbox. Yup it is much more hardcore, still compared to Elite is like comparing World simulator (EVE) to Mario (Elite). The biggest advantage of Elite is dynamic combat. Everything else is better in EVE sadly. Still EVE with point and click combat can't substitute Elite.
On topic:
Also the problem exists that even if FDEV were to implement OPEN ONLY mission rewards (CZ defeat opponents, additional bonus awards for player vs player kills).. then it's likely to be abused to hell and back to cheat / exploit BGS gains. Unfortunately, the competitive nature of human vs human means that min / maxing / cheating / stat padding and exploitation to get that few % advantage over someone else is virtually mandatory once one person does it.
Therefore only a PvE controlled BGS is viable... I wish it wasn't, but reality is a cruel mistress.
Also the problem exists that even if FDEV were to implement OPEN ONLY mission rewards (CZ defeat opponents, additional bonus awards for player vs player kills).. then it's likely to be abused to hell and back to cheat / exploit BGS gains. Unfortunately, the competitive nature of human vs human means that min / maxing / cheating / stat padding and exploitation to get that few % advantage over someone else is virtually mandatory once one person does it.
Therefore only a PvE controlled BGS is viable... I wish it wasn't, but reality is a cruel mistress.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Players that bought the game expecting to be able to shoot at every player bought the wrong game.
The only difference between PvE and PvP combat is that the ship being targeted by the player is another player. Open offers the possibility (but no guarantee) of PvP - the galaxy is a big place, after all.
Anything like that would also work in Private Groups - as Frontier have not chosen to implement any permanent game content for a single game mode only (and I don't expect them to start now), i.e. Wings and, more recently, Multi-Crew are both available in both multi-player modes.
As to Guilds / Clans - that's something else that Frontier (DBOBE specifically) would seem to be reluctant to introduce - small player groups don't seem to cause any issues though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c;t=19m40s
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
indeed... and that is why i DONT play EVE online
i think you need to realise that better is subjective,
Last edited:
i agree. i would also add, that some people paid money to the kickstarter on the expectation of an offline solo mode which turned out to be impractical or undesirable, and solo is part of a compromise solution imo to appease them somewhat. so there is a legacy issue of sorts there. i personally wont play open. i dont need some 12 year old showing off to his pals wiping me out in seconds with his OP cutter for the lulz and ruining my fun because unlike him i dont have billions in rebuys.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Those that pledged / bought ED did not buy EVE (nor the promise of EVE).
It would probably be more effective to petition CCP for "EVE with Cockpits"....
Last edited:
um care to examine that sentence for logical consistency?
Well, i'd have shut this down and off to Hotel California with it, because it absoloutly is an Open/Solo debate.
But since Rob has charged in, i'll add my bit.
It always amazes me that those who don't like the setup seem to have actually zero clue about how the BGS actually works. You don't need to see your opponents ships. Seeing them doesn't help you at all. You have no idea what those ships are doing. Maybe they are running missions for your faction. But hey, doesn't even matter. They could tell you to your face they are working against your faction. Not like you can do anything about it directly.
What you have to watch for is the effects they are having. You have ship statistics in the stations telling you how often the system is being entered and by what ships, that gives you an idea of traffic. But mainly, the way to work the BGS is by doing things that increase influence for your faction and reduce any opposing factions.
To use the chess analogy you used. Its like both seeing the board but not seeing each other. Both sides have all the information they need to play the game. You don't need to see your opponent. Another way of putting it, its like playing chess over the internet... or having an internet argument... erm...
But since Rob has charged in, i'll add my bit.
It always amazes me that those who don't like the setup seem to have actually zero clue about how the BGS actually works. You don't need to see your opponents ships. Seeing them doesn't help you at all. You have no idea what those ships are doing. Maybe they are running missions for your faction. But hey, doesn't even matter. They could tell you to your face they are working against your faction. Not like you can do anything about it directly.
What you have to watch for is the effects they are having. You have ship statistics in the stations telling you how often the system is being entered and by what ships, that gives you an idea of traffic. But mainly, the way to work the BGS is by doing things that increase influence for your faction and reduce any opposing factions.
To use the chess analogy you used. Its like both seeing the board but not seeing each other. Both sides have all the information they need to play the game. You don't need to see your opponent. Another way of putting it, its like playing chess over the internet... or having an internet argument... erm...
Deleted member 38366
D
I think the logical error here is a false expectation of "winning".
The only way all the different Modes and Platforms affect each other is :
- 1st Discoveries (any other "invisible" Player might have gotten the Scan and sold it 1st at anytime)
- to a very small extent, the Economy (Supply figures, they can be emptied by anyone at a Station CG-style over time)
- PowerPlay
- mainly the BGS
"Winning" in above terms :
Exploration - be the 1st to sell the Data of that undiscovered ELW, which is a function of speed and luck (no way of telling if someone is already holding it and could sell it at all or when)
Economy - not a big factor, just go to another place to stock up; every Tradable item that's for sale either has a minimum personal allocation (rares) or alternative supply sources, meaning it's not a competition anyway
BGS/PowerPlay - achieve your personal goals against Resistance, despite other Inputs working against them. BGS and PP offer plenty of Options to do that.
(There is no "annihilation" of "the invisible one", as it's not needed. There's a myriad of advanced methods to try to achieve similar or even equivalent results though )
The use of the term "hiding" is wrong by all means. "Not directly visible" is the better description.
A PS4 CMDR won't "hide" from an XBOX CMDR. An Open Play CMDR doesn't "hide" from a Private Group CMDR. A Solo Player on XBOX doesn't "hide" from a Private Group Player on PC.
All everyone does is Play the Game.
And all everyone else has to do (if affected) is : Learn, Analyze, Adopt, Plan a Strategy, Act and (hopefully) Succeed.
There is no such thing as "I'll stuff and weld my 2nd Cutter into the Mailslot of my Home Station and paint "You shall not pass!" onto it".
Gates will be always open to anyone not Hostile, because in essence the Factions run the show, not us.
We can trigger stuff with them, but we don't get to decide who gets Docking Permission or not - or who gets which Missions for which Faction.
That's just not us.
Plan & Fly accordingly
The only way all the different Modes and Platforms affect each other is :
- 1st Discoveries (any other "invisible" Player might have gotten the Scan and sold it 1st at anytime)
- to a very small extent, the Economy (Supply figures, they can be emptied by anyone at a Station CG-style over time)
- PowerPlay
- mainly the BGS
"Winning" in above terms :
Exploration - be the 1st to sell the Data of that undiscovered ELW, which is a function of speed and luck (no way of telling if someone is already holding it and could sell it at all or when)
Economy - not a big factor, just go to another place to stock up; every Tradable item that's for sale either has a minimum personal allocation (rares) or alternative supply sources, meaning it's not a competition anyway
BGS/PowerPlay - achieve your personal goals against Resistance, despite other Inputs working against them. BGS and PP offer plenty of Options to do that.
(There is no "annihilation" of "the invisible one", as it's not needed. There's a myriad of advanced methods to try to achieve similar or even equivalent results though
)The use of the term "hiding" is wrong by all means. "Not directly visible" is the better description.
A PS4 CMDR won't "hide" from an XBOX CMDR. An Open Play CMDR doesn't "hide" from a Private Group CMDR. A Solo Player on XBOX doesn't "hide" from a Private Group Player on PC.
All everyone does is Play the Game.
And all everyone else has to do (if affected) is : Learn, Analyze, Adopt, Plan a Strategy, Act and (hopefully) Succeed.
There is no such thing as "I'll stuff and weld my 2nd Cutter into the Mailslot of my Home Station and paint "You shall not pass!" onto it".
Gates will be always open to anyone not Hostile, because in essence the Factions run the show, not us.
We can trigger stuff with them, but we don't get to decide who gets Docking Permission or not - or who gets which Missions for which Faction.
That's just not us.
Plan & Fly accordingly
Last edited by a moderator:
You're absolutely right, I think the only difference being that everything in EvE is completely tailored to confrontational PvP. From industry to exploration.. it conforms to PvP convention. Some of the game play elements of EvE are game changing. I cannot help but step and admire EvE from a distance... Unfortunately the exclusive PvP nature of it turns me right off it. I just don't have the time resources for it, and it becomes a stressful job outside of a job, which I just can't really deal with.
A hybrid of EvE and ED might be an interesting concept... But I'd prefer it as a PvE game, and not have to worry about PvP encounters (which would hook a death blow to EvE, as it simply couldn't work as anything other than a single open PvP geared playground).
Last edited:
I played the 14 day trial twice, when it came out and when it got bodies and apartments. I couldn't tell a significant difference between EVE and WoW, ToR, or a bunch of other things that've been done to death, except that it took real time to do things, which was an excellent reason to play something else.
EVE have nothing to do with WOW. It is totally, extremely different game. I would say that WOW have much more common with Elite than EVE...
for me the original warcraft has more in common with how i play elite than WOW
How so? I only played WoW for an hour, but both in ToR and EvE the gameplay was pressing my number keys in the most efficient order, which was the same for every fight.
- Status