The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[angusmadmac1]

 

[Screemonster]

You have your own version of the Inquisition? You put heretics to the rack?

Steve

I thought that was my ship.

 

[Shadowsnog]

Such drama. PP, PvP, open only, 5C...
I am really starting to think about doing some of this 5C stuff to powers i dont like (all of them). Of course in solo Just to make a point. As long as non consensual PvP in open is legimitate gameplay, so is non consensual PP. Or whatever it should be called. It is not a cutthroat galaxy? And suddenly it is important to play "honorably"? I dont buy it.

that has always been allowed. its fine. its a choice... you can either live honourably, or live... like that

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Such drama. PP, PvP, open only, 5C...
I am really starting to think about doing some of this 5C stuff to powers i dont like (all of them). Of course in solo Just to make a point. As long as non consensual PvP in open is legimitate gameplay, so is non consensual PP. Or whatever it should be called. It is not a cutthroat galaxy? And suddenly it is important to play "honorably"? I dont buy it.

The point you'd be making is that powerplay 1.0 is pretty broken. That point has been making itself for 8 years and everyone who's genuinely tried to engage with it agrees. But you go for it.

 

[Rebel Yell]

View attachment 388402

 

[August Lagrange]

I might as well have my input.

PP 1.0 is fundamentally broken, in so many ways. The problem is that if you accept that anyone can pull a power in any direction they choose, then it becomes complete chaos, with people competing for their chosen system to get in, and a lot of people not engaging because there's no sense of community, no sense of purpose. Accepting that would be the death of PowerPlay.

What the leaders of the various powers- all of the ones still active- have done is make the game fun by giving their community direction. We're playing a game, we don't have to do what they say. That's a choice that we make, not once, but every time we're told "we want to improve the triggers for x system so please put this faction in charge" or whatever. We can ask why, and I've always found leadership universally accepting of reasonable ideas and questions. But in making the choice to follow those shared objectives, we make the game more fun, for ourselves and for others. Because it's not just ourselves individually doing that, but we do that as part of a community. We can work with them, and against other communities. In this way I've had some of my most memorable experiences playing the game.

As for the question of open vs solo vs PG, undoubtedly some of the most fun I've had has been not just working with others, but against others. I've hauled a billion credits' worth of merits in a cycle to an expansion, getting killed many times as I did so. I would do it all again. I understand that some get anxiety with the possibility of getting killed by other players, but PP is a multiplayer game mode- the whole point is to interact with others. Why even play it if you're just going to wall yourself off from everyone else? It's so much more engaging if at any moment you could arrive at a system and find opposition. You have to learn methods of escape, or dare I say it, fighting back. It adds a whole dimension to the game that is worth engaging with.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I might as well have my input.

PP 1.0 is fundamentally broken, in so many ways. The problem is that if you accept that anyone can pull a power in any direction they choose, then it becomes complete chaos, with people competing for their chosen system to get in, and a lot of people not engaging because there's no sense of community, no sense of purpose. Accepting that would be the death of PowerPlay.

We don't know yet if PP 2.0 will work / be sustainable in that way... anyway, if that's being the case there's the possibility that "civil" or "dynasty" wars may erupt within the various powers when the different groups/backers will try to gather the "control" of it. Why not, I mean... it's like Games of Thrones or sthing like that which I don't see as necessarly bad. New groups, new dynamics may bring further lore/gameplay developments... "leaders" might be challenged and ousted, new "leaders" might bring a complete different approach (if able to gather enough followers) to pursue different goals.

I'm more skewed to believe that there's the very high likelihood that the current alliances (ZYADA/FUC) can be broken (i.e. we don't know if the game playe will prevent the powers belonging to same superpower to enter in conflict). Again, something that I don't see as necessarly bad, given how some powers have been reduced as of today.

What the leaders of the various powers- all of the ones still active- have done is make the game fun by giving their community direction. We're playing a game, we don't have to do what they say. That's a choice that we make, not once, but every time we're told "we want to improve the triggers for x system so please put this faction in charge" or whatever. We can ask why, and I've always found leadership universally accepting of reasonable ideas and questions. But in making the choice to follow those shared objectives, we make the game more fun, for ourselves and for others. Because it's not just ourselves individually doing that, but we do that as part of a community. We can work with them, and against other communities. In this way I've had some of my most memorable experiences playing the game.

That's correct, but it's also very subjective. Leaders are not failproof... as I've said above, new dynamics may arise.

As for the question of open vs solo vs PG, undoubtedly some of the most fun I've had has been not just working with others, but against others. I've hauled a billion credits' worth of merits in a cycle to an expansion, getting killed many times as I did so. I would do it all again. I understand that some get anxiety with the possibility of getting killed by other players, but PP is a multiplayer game mode- the whole point is to interact with others. Why even play it if you're just going to wall yourself off from everyone else? It's so much more engaging if at any moment you could arrive at a system and find opposition. You have to learn methods of escape, or dare I say it, fighting back. It adds a whole dimension to the game that is worth engaging with.

'nuff said! That's going to be my new best quote to c&p vs. everyone who plays behind the "wall".

 

[Northpin]

As for the question of open vs solo vs PG, undoubtedly some of the most fun I've had has been not just working with others, but against others. I've hauled a billion credits' worth of merits in a cycle to an expansion, getting killed many times as I did so. I would do it all again. I understand that some get anxiety with the possibility of getting killed by other players, but PP is a multiplayer game mode- the whole point is to interact with others. Why even play it if you're just going to wall yourself off from everyone else? It's so much more engaging if at any moment you could arrive at a system and find opposition. You have to learn methods of escape, or dare I say it, fighting back. It adds a whole dimension to the game that is worth engaging with.

I dont dispute the fun part of pvp engagements, but they're ultimately detrimental not only at being efficient in fulfilling the game objectives, but to actually meet those objectives even if you drop any idea of efficiency.

You said you hauled a billion merits... you did your part. Congrats.
The people that tried to hunt you down, didnt. They wasted their time chasing you instead of hauling a billion merits themselves for their Power.


Or maybe the opposing power had big enough numbers to have people out hunting you for fun while the heavy lifters were doing their hauling too, which deserves for pointing out how irrelevant is PVP for PowerPlay especially in a game where PVP is purely optional.

Let me put emphasis on that:
PVP is optional. which means Elite is not a PVP game. The only PVP part of Elite is CQC and it is outside the main game.

 

[Rebel Yell]

The people that tried to hunt you down, didnt. They wasted their time chasing you instead of hauling a billion merits themselves for their Power.

Blockading a system (HQ or targeted) during a turmoil can be quite effective to disrupt forts, "hunting" may also happen when undermining.

Tracking haulers in open isn't that difficult as "forts" can't be stored, moreover one might try to force haulers to come to fort systems due to undermining.

PVP is optional. which means Elite is not a PVP game. The only PVP part of Elite is CQC and it is outside the main game.

My grandfather had three balls, but he wasn't a flipper.

C'mon, the "optionality" argument is absolutely worthless....................................

 

[Screemonster]

I had some fun PvP earlier today just by following a frontline shuttle to a settlement and picking a side at random, which happened to be the opposite side to the other CMDR.

My goal wasn't to support a particular side in the conflict. My goal was to shoot stuff and get paid, and if the stuff I was shooting at put up more of a fight than an NPC then so much the better.

Which he did. He even got the drop on me a couple of times. Unfortunately he kept trying to shoot me with kinetics while my shields were up while I was rocking the aphelion/AR50 wombocombo which is by far the more effective choice when dealing with people who insist on bouncing around like the goddamn gummi bears. I felt a little guilty after the first few kills, but he was still dangerous and aggressive enough that I couldn't just ignore him and make it into an NPC-farming race.

Fun time. And, given that this is a videogame, isn't that what we're here for?

 

[angusmadmac1]

It all depends on your definition of Fun ? My fun is flying with friends and just messing about , others want to explore or PVP or PVE trade or even grind . My fun is mine and the beauty of Elite was that it encompasses all those play styles .

 

[August Lagrange]

I dont dispute the fun part of pvp engagements, but they're ultimately detrimental not only at being efficient in fulfilling the game objectives, but to actually meet those objectives even if you drop any idea of efficiency.

They wasted their time chasing you instead of hauling a billion merits themselves for their Power.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that the objective is to win. It is not. The objective is to have fun. We will never win- that is simply impossible due to the mechanics. The best we can do, really, is insist on not losing. PVPers are the playing the way they want, to have fun. In our game of cat and mouse, we both achieved our goal. Being the mouse is scary, but there's a thrill to it.

PVP is optional. which means Elite is not a PVP game.

I agree, it is not a PVP game. Not purely. But it was built so that PVP can happen. Yeah, it wasn't built well for that (I'm sure PVPers will happily agree), but it was built so that at any moment you could be attacked, by NPCs or players. That is a core part of the game's premise.

Now, you can go solo, they built that in, and rightly so, because a lot of your activities don't really affect anyone else. I was in DW2, I remember when people were reporting that someone in Beagle Point was killing others. That's just being an ass, and in cases like these I go Solo all the time. But with PP, it's different, because the activity you're taking part in is inherently PVP. Your actions effect everyone. It's a political simulator, and politics involves working with and against others. Trying to go it alone in that context is drastically missing the point, and destroying the fun you and everyone else could be having. I would argue the same is true of BGS (some of the time). PP certainly, you cannot do anything in PP without affecting another player. That is PVP, regardless of whether it's shooting or racing to out-haul them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Now, you can go solo, they built that in, and rightly so, because a lot of your activities don't really affect anyone else.

Preferred choice of mode has nothing to do with affecting the game - as players in all three game modes affect mode shared game features, by design.

That some of those who prefer PvP seem to think that affecting the game from modes other than Open is in some way invalid is just an example of them subscribing to out of game rules and being disappointed that they can't force others to play their way.

I was in DW2, I remember when people were reporting that someone in Beagle Point was killing others. That's just being an ass, and in cases like these I go Solo all the time.

The irony of the Distant Ganks leaderboard being published with CMDR names, providing the basis of a block list (should a player be so inclined) was palpable.

But with PP, it's different, because the activity you're taking part in is inherently PVP. Your actions effect everyone. It's a political simulator, and politics involves working with and against others. Trying to go it alone in that context is drastically missing the point, and destroying the fun you and everyone else could be having. I would argue the same is true of BGS (some of the time). PP certainly, you cannot do anything in PP without affecting another player. That is PVP, regardless of whether it's shooting or racing to out-haul them.

It's no different - as the feature is based on PvE activitiers with no requirement for any participant to engage, or be engaged, in PvP while engaging in a mode shared feature. If it must be considered PvP then, at best, it's indirect asynchronous competition for players of all play-styles to engage in. Same with the BGS. It can otherwise be considered to be, as it is still described in the game description on the store:

In an age of galactic superpowers and interstellar war, every player’s story influences the unique connected gaming experience and handcrafted evolving narrative. Governments fall, battles are lost and won, and humanity’s frontier is reshaped, all by players’ actions.

Whether a player finds PvP to be in any way "fun" rather depends on the player - and while some may consider that players not choosing to engage in PvP destroys their fun, those players may well destroy the fun of the players who don't choose to engage in PvP if they were to engage them in unwanted PvP.

While it is unsurprising that those who prefer PvP suggest that others are missing out in some way by not engaging in it, it's not for them to dictate how any other player should play - we all bought a game where game features are mode shared and where other players are an optional extra, even if some of us can't accept that design.

 

[Robert Maynard]

C'mon, the "optionality" argument is absolutely worthless....................................

From the perspective of some of those whose play-style depends on instancing with other players maybe - however players whose play-style depends on other players choosing to instance with them have always been vulnerable to those they want to interact with choosing not to play with them, or blocking them for that matter.

 

[August Lagrange]

That some of those who prefer PvP seem to think that affecting the game from modes other than Open is in some way invalid is just an example of them subscribing to out of game rules and being disappointed that they can't force others to play their way.

To be clear- and you've implied multiple times that I prefer PVP- I don't. It is very rare for me to grab my PVP FDL and try to actually kill someone. I'm pretty bad at it, if I'm honest. So please understand my position in this discussion is one of someone who, the vast majority of the time, is on the bad end of the barrel.

Whether a player finds PvP to be in any way "fun" rather depends on the player - and while some may consider that players not choosing to engage in PvP destroys their fun, those players may well destroy the fun of the players who don't choose to engage in PvP if they were to engage them in unwanted PvP.

While it is unsurprising that those who prefer PvP suggest that others are missing out in some way by not engaging in it, it's not for them to dictate how any other player should play - we all bought a game where game features are mode shared and where other players are an optional extra, even if some of us can't accept that design.

To be clear, there is a distinction between PP and the rest of the game. It is necessary that PVP is optional for everything outside of PP (and maybe BGS). But as for PP, no, I cannot accept the design. Nobody does, because it's a bad design. If everybody played with this "I am an island" mentality, PP would be dead. But I feel I've already explained my position on that so I won't reiterate it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

To be clear- and you've implied multiple times that I prefer PVP- I don't. It is very rare for me to grab my PVP FDL and try to actually kill someone. I'm pretty bad at it, if I'm honest. So please understand my position in this discussion is one of someone who, the vast majority of the time, is on the bad end of the barrel.

Understood. Noting that some players don't initiate PvP at all - so those who do, even rarely, might reasonably be confused with those in the "prefers PvP" category - moreso when they support PvP-gating of existing mode shared game features.

To be clear, there is a distinction between PP and the rest of the game. It is necessary that PVP is optional for everything outside of PP (and maybe BGS). But as for PP, no, I cannot accept the design. Nobody does, because it's a bad design. If everybody played with this "I am an island" mentality, PP would be dead. But I feel I've already explained my position on that so I won't reiterate it.

Not accepting the design does not mean that the design was necessarily bad, just not designed in the way that those who prefer / tolerate PvP would want it to be.

The assertion that "Nobody does" (accept the design) is a bold and unsupported one. It is certain that not all players accept the design, however.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I might as well have my input.

PP 1.0 is fundamentally broken, in so many ways. The problem is that if you accept that anyone can pull a power in any direction they choose, then it becomes complete chaos, with people competing for their chosen system to get in, and a lot of people not engaging because there's no sense of community, no sense of purpose. Accepting that would be the death of PowerPlay.

Keeping in mind that I’m excluding 5C activities here, what would be so bad about different players and groups having fun with PowerPlay on their own terms, rather than slaving away at the orders of one self-appointed “leader?” I already have a day job, I don't need another. My attitude towards these "Leaders" has always been "I'll take your suggestions under advisement." I have a lot of respect for the amount of effort required to formulate an optimal strategy, but at the end of the day I play to make my own decisions, not follow the decisions of another.

What the leaders of the various powers- all of the ones still active- have done is make the game fun by giving their community direction. We're playing a game, we don't have to do what they say. That's a choice that we make, not once, but every time we're told "we want to improve the triggers for x system so please put this faction in charge" or whatever. We can ask why, and I've always found leadership universally accepting of reasonable ideas and questions. But in making the choice to follow those shared objectives, we make the game more fun, for ourselves and for others. Because it's not just ourselves individually doing that, but we do that as part of a community. We can work with them, and against other communities. In this way I've had some of my most memorable experiences playing the game.

That's one point of view. Another is that we're all playing the same game, and just because an aspect of it is cooperative, doesn't necessarily mean we must suborn ourselves to a master to have fun in the game. I engage in PowerPlay (to the extent I do, given that I don't enjoy the current options to earn merits) because it adds a sorely needed dimension to my in-game decisions, not to "win" at any cost, especially at the expense of having fun.

Here's hoping PowerPlay 2.0 will be much more nuanced and dynamic than PowerPlay 1.0, and can't be optimized to the point of becoming an eternal entrenched engagement.

As for the question of open vs solo vs PG, undoubtedly some of the most fun I've had has been not just working with others, but against others. I've hauled a billion credits' worth of merits in a cycle to an expansion, getting killed many times as I did so. I would do it all again. I understand that some get anxiety with the possibility of getting killed by other players, but PP is a multiplayer game mode- the whole point is to interact with others. Why even play it if you're just going to wall yourself off from everyone else? It's so much more engaging if at any moment you could arrive at a system and find opposition. You have to learn methods of escape, or dare I say it, fighting back. It adds a whole dimension to the game that is worth engaging with.

I have no issue with playing inefficiently if everyone involved has fun. I play in Open because it's fun, and the game is stacked in favor of alert and skillful flying, not grinding away perpetually to maintain a hard coded stat advantage. It's fairly easy to evade an interdition attempt if you aren't flying with your focus on Netflix, and if you happen to fail, you should be able to escape if you don't fly in a manner that makes you an easy target, in a ship made of paper.

I do have an issue of forcing everyone to play in one particular way, especially in a game with asymmetrical PvP. There are quite frankly a cohort of players (5C) who are simply not fun to play with. There's also a cohort of players (PvE) who simply want to be left alone and have fun. Currently, the 5C players are squirreled away in Solo/PG because their primary targets, PvE players, are also in Solo, and the rest of us on Open are simply not the soft targets they desire. Thus, the best way to disrupt the gameplay of others is via 5C in Solo/PGs.

The 5C players are already playing against the "spirit" of PowerPlay rules, let alone by your rules. Do you honestly expect that they'll play "fair" if they're forced into Open with the current instancing rules? Or that some PvE players will follow suit to preserve the gameplay they previously enjoyed? That's a recipe for frustration IMO. I find that Open in Elite Dangerous is far more enjoyable than it has any right to be, given how similar MMO environments have been in the past.

 

[Rebel Yell]

To be clear, there is a distinction between PP and the rest of the game. It is necessary that PVP is optional for everything outside of PP (and maybe BGS). But as for PP, no, I cannot accept the design. Nobody does, because it's a bad design. If everybody played with this "I am an island" mentality, PP would be dead. But I feel I've already explained my position on that so I won't reiterate it.

'uff said x2, I appreciate you rightly expressed your opinions... (which I do agree 100%) but remember that on average you're discussing with players who don't even know what they're talking about (powerplay in open, PvP, etc), who will have played maybe five hours in open in crowded/popular systems and their only experience was to be blown up and then blame someone else Then they decided that this game should be played PvE in the right way for everything and that any argument to the contrary, which includes a kind of a direct challenge (PvP) against some one else, is: a) wrong b) optional c) useless d) inefficient.

The only good thing about this forum is that if you click on "ignore" it's as if they don't exist... exactly like in game (since in solo/PG you'll never see them).

 

[Rebel Yell]

Keeping in mind that I’m excluding 5C activities here, what would be so bad about different players and groups having fun with PowerPlay on their own terms, rather than slaving away at the orders of one self-appointed “leader?” I already have a day job, I don't need another. My attitude towards these "Leaders" has always been "I'll take your suggestions under advisement." I have a lot of respect for the amount of effort required to formulate an optimal strategy, but at the end of the day I play to make my own decisions, not follow the decisions of another.

That's a good attitude, perhaps not the best one for the group (may be), but best for you as player as you're taking the "best" of both... I mean, when you're considering the advice (= the "group"), but you're having fun on your own. What powerplay groups/communities do is to provide some kind of direction in the long run, and a set of activities at micro-level, then it's up to group members to follow this or that or doing something else because they have to pursue other goals etc. as far as they don't harm what other peeps in the same group/community are doing (= respect).

Ofc "leaders" have to take decisions, with or without counseling/advice from deputies and/or other group members, as it is their task... but IMHO decisions which are not finding a good footing within the group, are not good decisions (and perhaps the "leader" isn't good either).

That's one point of view. Another is that we're all playing the same game, and just because an aspect of it is cooperative, doesn't necessarily mean we must suborn ourselves to a master to have fun in the game. I engage in PowerPlay (to the extent I do, given that I don't enjoy the current options to earn merits) because it adds a sorely needed dimension to my in-game decisions, not to "win" at any cost, especially at the expense of having fun.

Exactly, frustration, self-sacrifice, etc and/or doing things we don't like to do in a videogame, never end up well.

Here's hoping PowerPlay 2.0 will be much more nuanced and dynamic than PowerPlay 1.0, and can't be optimized to the point of becoming an eternal entrenched engagement.

Fingers crossed!

I have no issue with playing inefficiently if everyone involved has fun. I play in Open because it's fun, and the game is stacked in favor of alert and skillful flying, not grinding away perpetually to maintain a hard coded stat advantage. It's fairly easy to evade an interdition attempt if you aren't flying with your focus on Netflix, and if you happen to fail, you should be able to escape if you don't fly in a manner that makes you an easy target, in a ship made of paper.

'nuff said, same for me (whooops I also "died" because was texting here whilst playing ).

I do have an issue of forcing everyone to play in one particular way, especially in a game with asymmetrical PvP. There are quite frankly a cohort of players (5C) who are simply not fun to play with. There's also a cohort of players (PvE) who simply want to be left alone and have fun. Currently, the 5C players are squirreled away in Solo/PG because their primary targets, PvE players, are also in Solo, and the rest of us on Open are simply not the soft targets they desire. Thus, the best way to disrupt the gameplay of others is via 5C in Solo/PGs.

The 5C players are already playing against the "spirit" of PowerPlay rules, let alone by your rules. Do you honestly expect that they'll play "fair" if they're forced into Open with the current instancing rules? Or that some PvE players will follow suit to preserve the gameplay they previously enjoyed? That's a recipe for frustration IMO. I find that Open in Elite Dangerous is far more enjoyable than it has any right to be, given how similar MMO environments have been in the past.

Print 10k copies of this and stick this around every place of this sub.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Another is that we're all playing the same game, and just because an aspect of it is cooperative, doesn't necessarily mean we must suborn ourselves to a master to have fun in the game.

Indeed we are, and no-one requires to follow direction from any other player, self/subset-appointed in a leadership role or not.