The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Darrack]

It's not only about being able to attack or intimidate, it's about negotiation, meeting neighbours & building relationships. It's a lot harder for insular propaganda to justify flattening another faction when you have met its supporters & know what they are actually like. A simple example would be that you met someone supporting a neighbouring faction & they helped you with a war they had no interest in had they not met you, or that they didn't shoot at you when they had the chance, helping to establish trust rather than animosity.

I suppose a lot of this happens between leaders of large groups on discord now instead of in the game itself.

Good point but there should be no negotiation, one player group has no right to speak for a power, sure they can have a chat about a system but don't get upset when others have a different idea.
In my short time in Power Play me and my group have quickly realised why the leaders of large groups arn't happy with some of us playing in PGs, basically they cant control us.

O7

 

[Riverside]

Good point but there should be no negotiation, one player group has no right to speak for a power, sure they can have a chat about a system but don't get upset when others have a different idea.
In my short time in Power Play me and my group have quickly realised why the leaders of large groups arn't happy with some of us playing in PGs, basically they cant control us.

O7

Having nominated negotiators, or at least nominated points of contact is something I understand to be common amongst player groups/squadrons of all sizes.

Not being sure one can trust the person you are negotiating with is part of that process. With experience you learn who is true to their word & who is bigging themselves up. I play in Open to give myself the best chance of meeting others, sometimes I get shot at


ETA just to clarify, by 'negotiate' I mean anything from agreeing to help each other against a common enemy to agreeing who controls systems. An example that's publicly available is The Dark Wheel project where they have agreements about who controls a system, who is in second place, who is in third etc. Anyone can support TDW & nobody has to follow the leaders' directions but they maintain control by being the dominant force.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

It is not about winning. It is about having a fair chance, which I don't. And it is about, to use the in my opinion totally hollow phrase, having a "meaningful" encounter, a category to which being interdicted, attacked and most likely be destroyed doesn't belong for me. I am the least competitive player you can imagine, and I gain nothing from it. Really nothing. I only lose, most likely time, because I have to make the trip I was on again.

And I do not care for challenges. Really, I don't.

It seems like modes don't make much difference for you. If you avoid adversarial or challenging situations, then you are likely to be in places that are quiet, or populated by "friendlies" (otherwise it means you are working against other commanders - a challenge and also competitive). CGs being the exception (where, for me, the taking part is the thing).

If you need risk excluded entirely to feel comfortable, then I'm not seeing huge disadvantages of PG. Even in open (and by extension a hypothetical "PvE open"), co-op generally requires out-of-game organisation. It's not a big leap to use the same organisation to obtain the same co-op in PG. The exception might again be CGs. If it could be confined to CGs, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with some form of "open PvE" partition. Because a) CGs are busy and can stand further population splitting without emptying, and b) CGs have an actual issue with levels of ganking (fine if PvP is your main thing, not so fine if PvP is something you only want as a side dish).

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

There is nothing predictable in Elite, there are still NPCs and still i make mistakes, i don't need gankers to change my game experience.
I play many MMOs, solo and pure PvP games but for me Elite is my goto PVE game.
Until they implement an Open PVE environment and do away with the muppets sadly i will rarely bump into anyone else out in the Black other than with prearanged meets.

O7

How dare you talk about Kermit like that.

I was being a bit too black and white with it to make a point. Which is that the solo experience is extremely constrained and if you confine yourself to that you're missing out. I'm guessing the PvP games you play are also highly constrained. If you could cope with some people enjoying blowing player ships up, or them feeling they have good, contextual reasons to, and accept that it's not fundamentally a big deal, then you might be able to enjoy open yourself, and without needing to copy their rules of engagement. One joy of open is precisely the potential for completely different motivations to affect two CMDRs passing each other in a system. Not psycho and carebear, but the full hyperdimensional spectrum. Other multiplayer games are often disappointing because they constrain that. And in ED, population is sparse enough that PvP is seldom that intrusive so - it works.

 

[Darrack]

How dare you talk about Kermit like that.

I was being a bit too black and white with it to make a point. Which is that the solo experience is extremely constrained and if you confine yourself to that you're missing out. I'm guessing the PvP games you play are also highly constrained. If you could cope with some people enjoying blowing player ships up, or them feeling they have good, contextual reasons to, and accept that it's not fundamentally a big deal, then you might be able to enjoy open yourself, and without needing to copy their rules of engagement. One joy of open is precisely the potential for completely different motivations to affect two CMDRs passing each other in a system. Not psycho and carebear, but the full hyperdimensional spectrum. Other multiplayer games are often disappointing because they constrain that. And in ED, population is sparse enough that PvP is seldom that intrusive so - it works.

I have no issue with PvP but when its balanced and Elite was never designed for PvP.
Give you an example, last time i had too many ciders and hit Open by mistake im flying a T7 Guardian site looter and get interdicted by KermitMcGankface in his cutter.
No worries i jump out to another system 55LY, good luck following.
Just for a laugh i log back in on my Vette and head back to the system, luckily there he/she/it is, guess what the muppet jumps out.
Met with a fair fight these so called PvPers arn't interested, they just want to grief easy targets.

Not my idea of fun having to dodge dedicated combat ships in an explorer and no im not scrimping on modules just to give myself a better chance of survival, why should i when this wonderful game gives me the tools to not have to.

Block um or solo, makes no difference to me.

O7

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Good point but there should be no negotiation, one player group has no right to speak for a power, sure they can have a chat about a system but don't get upset when others have a different idea.
In my short time in Power Play me and my group have quickly realised why the leaders of large groups arn't happy with some of us playing in PGs, basically they cant control us.

O7

What group is that? The reason coherent command structures emerge in powerplay is that, treated as a consciously territorial game feature with many moving and interdependent parts (apparently designed that way by FDev in fact), a power can only be advanced by following a single coherent plan that takes all possibilities into account, and yes, controls the distribution of resource among different objectives that serve that plan. The centralised groups are also best placed to do it, becoming like small University departments, concentrating knowledge, experience and expertise. If you're not working with that plan, then the fact is you're effectively working against it, and the power's economy. You're wasting the time of the people that are working to that plan. Like ganking I guess, except that, if we're talking more than a random CMDR or two, it can be months or even years of effort by whole large teams that can be flushed down the drain, not just a hold of platinum up in smoke. This is in part due to bad design of the feature (the ability to fatally deepen or enhance the likelihood of turmoils by fortification or expansion, ostensive positive acts). And of course you're wasting your own time, because the design of the feature compels the formation of large centralised groups. And while you might be able to spoil some of their plans, they'll always have more manpower to spoil yours. Seriously, you should consult the leadership of your pledged power to let them explain the folly of this attitude. You are a walking advert for open-only powerplay.

I do think there's a conflict between the mechanics of powerplay and the "roleplay" of each power. But that's the fault of frustrating design by FDev, where what's good for a power's economy tends to work against its ethos more often than it should, and in ways that don't particularly make sense.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I have no issue with PvP but when its balanced and Elite was never designed for PvP.
Give you an example, last time i had too many ciders and hit Open by mistake im flying a T7 Guardian site looter and get interdicted by KermitMcGankface in his cutter.
No worries i jump out to another system 55LY, good luck following.
Just for a laugh i log back in on my Vette and head back to the system, luckily there he/she/it is, guess what the muppet jumps out.
Met with a fair fight these so called PvPers arn't interested, they just want to grief easy targets.

Not my idea of fun having to dodge dedicated combat ships in an explorer and no im not scrimping on modules just to give myself a better chance of survival, why should i when this wonderful game gives me the tools to not have to.

Block um or solo, makes no difference to me.

O7

Sounds to me like people tend to flee engagements when their chance of victory is slim and there aren't motivations that trump the detriment of losing - for instance a PvP escort may happily take on an unfair fight because delivering their charge's cargo trumps their rebuy and any pride considerations.

 

[SteveWW57]

Met with a fair fight these so called PvPers arn't interested, they just want to grief easy targets.

I believe that is a fair comment. Such CMDRs are not doing PvP for the experience, but to pick on weak targets, the destruction of which they see as their fun and their right. Lest I run afoul of the rules, I will not use the word that I am thinking of.

Steve

 

[Darrack]

Seriously, you should consult the leadership of your pledged power to let them explain the folly of this attitude. You are a walking advert for open-only powerplay.

They are not my leaders and having spoken to a few its clear they are just set on one course doing deals with whoever, not my idea of PP.
Luckily we have Solo and PG so its really a non issue.
But to be honest this is a discussion for elsewhere.

O7

 

[Riverside]

I believe that is a fair comment. Such CMDRs are not doing PvP for the experience, but to pick on weak targets, the destruction of which they see as their fun and their right. Lest I run afoul of the rules, I will not use the word that I am thinking of.

Steve

The kind of player you describe is as enthusiastic about the game as you are, and knowledgeable about the parts of it they take an interest in too. They just play in a different way, with different motivations.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

The kind of player you describe is as enthusiastic about the game as you are, and knowledgeable about the parts of it they take an interest in too. They just play in a different way, with different motivations.

Yeah, like say a troll is participicating in serious discussion, just with different way and different motivations. And I'm not accusing anyone in this thread being a troll. Just a comparison. I regard such kind of PVPers as equivalent of trolls.

 

[Riverside]

Yeah, like say a troll is participicating in serious discussion, just with different way and different motivations. And I'm not accusing anyone in this thread being a troll. Just comparison. I regard such kind of PVPers as equivalent of trolls.

This is because I'm a Hudson sympathiser isn't it? (kidding)


I guess there are people that play Fortnite to explore the terrain, I wonder how they react when their character gets killed?

Ed is a game where everyone has weapons & armour. People are going to shoot at each other, seems prudent to prepare for that.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

This is because I'm a Hudson sympathiser isn't it? (kidding)


I guess there are people that play Fortnite to explore the terrain, I wonder how they react when their character gets killed?

Ed is a game where everyone has weapons & armour. People are going to shoot at each other, seems prudent to prepare for that.

I understand violence in game's setting. Like defending oneself, pirating somebody, doing work for your faction (though it might not be most effective way, but still...), and so on.
But people "roleplaying" "I'm psychokiller and shoot preferably nearly defenceless targets for the lulz" types are in my book trolls, and should be treated like ones. As Fdev does not police them, I prefer blocking those types completely.

 

[Riverside]

I understand violence in game's setting. Like defending oneself, pirating somebody, doing work for your faction (though it might not be most effective way, but still...), and so on.
But people "roleplaying" "I'm psychokiller and shoot preferably nearly defenceless targets for the lulz" types are in my book trolls, and should be treated like ones. As Fdev does not police them, I prefer blocking those types completely.

I think you are referring to what is commonly called Griefers, or PKers, and the game needs some, but too many can certainly be frustrating yes. In ED there can be circumstances (easily avoided ones) like CGs where there can be too many in one place, but overall (in part at least because they are so easily avoided) not enough in other areas.

This seems like a good time to bring up Bartle's taxonomy of player types. It attempts to explain the relationships between different playstyles. Bear in mind that any given person can be a mixture of different types, and you can take the test to find out what type of player you are (other theories and tests are available). I'm an AEKS.

 

[varonica]

Sounds to me like people tend to flee engagements when their chance of victory is slim and there aren't motivations that trump the detriment of losing

These will be the same players who, on occasion, demand Open Only and combat mechanics that prevent over-whelmed enemy ships from fleeing, and also insult and attack players for running away. Once you have been on the forums long enough you will have seen it all. Basically one player wanted FSD's to be disabled while ships were in combat so that it would be "fair!"

 

[TiberiusDuval]

I think you are referring to what is commonly called Griefers, or PKers, and the game needs some, but too many can certainly be frustrating yes. In ED there can be circumstances (easily avoided ones) like CGs where there can be too many in one place, but overall (in part at least because they are so easily avoided) not enough in other areas.

This seems like a good time to bring up Bartle's taxonomy of player types. It attempts to explain the relationships between different playstyles. Bear in mind that any given person can be a mixture of different types, and you can take the test to find out what type of player you are (other theories and tests are available). I'm an AEKS.

Game needs griefers like outdoor picnic needs wasps. Or like engine needs little sand among oil...

 

[TiberiusDuval]

This seems like a good time to bring up Bartle's taxonomy of player types. It attempts to explain the relationships between different playstyles. Bear in mind that any given person can be a mixture of different types, and you can take the test to find out what type of player you are (other theories and tests are available). I'm an AEKS.

Results did not surprise me: "You are 93% Explorer" "60% Socialiser 33% Achiever 13% Killer"

 

[Rebel Yell]

It's not only about being able to attack or intimidate, it's about negotiation, meeting neighbours & building relationships. It's a lot harder for insular propaganda to justify flattening another faction when you have met its supporters & know what they are actually like. A simple example would be that you met someone supporting a neighbouring faction & they helped you with a war they had no interest in had they not met you, or that they didn't shoot at you when they had the chance, helping to establish trust rather than animosity.

I suppose a lot of this happens between leaders of large groups on discord now instead of in the game itself.

The game is totally lacking of any feature for such kind of group "interaction". On the PP menu there's only a reference to the "closest powers" but leaving PP for a moment, and looking at basic groups like squadrons and PMFs, there's no ingame feature where such "diplomatic" relations can be set and/or managed. Like the "coalitions" appearing on INARA, there is a huge potential to develop such kind of features in the game to enhance players' interaction at group level.

Bottom line: more players/groups interaction "guiding" the BGS and the Galaxy development instead of players vs. pixels and "hand-of-God" like features.

 

[ethelred]

ESAK which is surprising.

Tbh those options were quite binary and a lot of them I could have answered "neither"

In my mind when I play I'm Han Solo ofc. (Maybe Barry Hercules)

I differ from @TiberiusDuval in that I want a player threat in game, so I can thwart them.

I like a good thwarting.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

These will be the same players who, on occasion, demand Open Only and combat mechanics that prevent over-whelmed enemy ships from fleeing, and also insult and attack players for running away. Once you have been on the forums long enough you will have seen it all. Basically one player wanted FSD's to be disabled while ships were in combat so that it would be "fair!"

I was speaking generally - a player will always make a choice if an engagement is worth it. Darrack decided not to engage in his exploration ship, knowing it'd be fatal, came back in a vette and the original attacker decided they couldn't be bothered with that stalemate, or felt they'd be taking the rebuy. I think it's okay to prefer winning a fight to losing one, particularly when there's no other motivation - I gave a counter example.

The rest here seems to be the usual tedious conflation of gankers, PvPers, open-only <whatever> advocates that you should be disabused of after "being on the forums long enough". Or perhaps that's the problem, you're just listening to the echo chamber in here and don't comprehend the issues. A bad suggestion for a new mechanic is just that, I'm not sure why it tars all players with a tolerance of or interest in PvP.

As for fairness, people can be interested in balance regardless of whether or not a particular fight is fair. A player ship has to be possible to destroy otherwise there's no point in PvP (which must always entail the threat of losing something).