The Open v Solo v Groups thread

They simply can't grasp the simple fact: no one is afraid of them.
It's not fear, but annoyance. An irritant in something meaningful a player wants to do.
Depends how you define 'fear'.
Being in PP Discords and Teamspeaks, listening to (i) people making a noise like ET when he's trapped in a shed when they die to a rival PP Commander and (ii) the language used regarding shuffling off to PG or Solo when encountering opposition spoke less to annoyance, more an acknowledgement of being outclassed by a rival and the 'fear' of losing to them.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Didn't read all pages but, anyone posted about weight diferently the effect of open vs solo/pg?
I mean:

  • You play in Open, do an activity win X points towards BGS stuff
  • You play in Solo/PG, do an activity win X/Y towards BGS stuff

So you can affect BGS in all modes, but there is some good incentive to play in open, the Y should be dicussed (1/3, 1/5, 1/10...) but the point is about the general idea.
Indeed they have, and like this suggestion, the proposed penalty for playing in Solo and Private Groups was rather insulting towards those players, effectively making their effects on the game somewhere between worth less and worthless.

As written, if Y was less than 1 (as 1/3, 1/5 and 1/10 are all less than one), then players in modes other than Open would affect the game more than those on Open (as any number divided by a number less than one increases....).
 
Depends how you define 'fear'.
Being in PP Discords and Teamspeaks, listening to (i) people making a noise like ET when he's trapped in a shed when they die to a rival PP Commander and (ii) the language used regarding shuffling off to PG or Solo when encountering opposition spoke less to annoyance, more an acknowledgement of being outclassed by a rival and the 'fear' of losing to them.

I will try again:

This "rival" is simply an annoyance. I'm not here to search for "rivals" or to prove/compensate something to me, but to fly my spaceship the way I want, and do things in my own time, planning how to spend it and what do to. How to enjoy my time in my game.

"Acknowledgement of being outclassed"? What are you talking about?

Anyone who willingly put himself in that position is... well, we all operate on different processing powers.
 
Didn't read all pages but, anyone posted about weight diferently the effect of open vs solo/pg?
I mean:

  • You play in Open, do an activity win X points towards BGS stuff
  • You play in Solo/PG, do an activity win X/Y towards BGS stuff

So you can affect BGS in all modes, but there is some good incentive to play in open, the Y should be dicussed (1/3, 1/5, 1/10...) but the point is about the general idea.

Frequently.

My typical response is: anyone who chooses Solo/PG for some hypothetical advantage is also, in my experience, the type of player that isn’t fun to play with. I’d also much rather play in Open with like-minded players than be annoyed by unsportsmanlike behavior of the usual suspects.
 
I will try again:

This "rival" is simply an annoyance. I'm not here to search for "rivals" or to prove/compensate something to me, but to fly my spaceship the way I want, and do things in my own time, planning how to spend it and what do to. How to enjoy my time in my game.

"Acknowledgement of being outclassed"? What are you talking about?

Anyone who willingly put himself in that position is... well, we all operate on different processing powers.

The fact you see another player competing against you (in a situation where the game encourages it) as 'an annoyance' speaks volumes here.

To be succint, powerplay in its early era had a very strong Open Only community. For a player (who had previously conducted such gameplay in Open) to move their activities to one of the other modes due to them being unable to compete and succeed in that mode against an opponent, thereby circumventing potential interaction with them, is an acknowledgement of being outclassed by that opponent.
 
Those continuing to clutch at straws need to just let it go, we need to move on.
he says, but
Curtis Griffith (Elite Dangerous Game Designer) said:
We will be monitoring player feedback

so what am i to do when the straw is clearly being served on the table
maybe you would like to give up and move on? no? good.


For a player (who had previously conducted such gameplay in Open) to move their activities to one of the other modes due to them being unable to compete and succeed in that mode against an opponent, thereby circumventing potential interaction with them, is an acknowledgement of being outclassed by that opponent.
there might come a day, when solo/pg players win a meaningfull conflict. but it is not this day. :p
for frodo!
 
I will try again:

This "rival" is simply an annoyance. I'm not here to search for "rivals" or to prove/compensate something to me, but to fly my spaceship the way I want, and do things in my own time, planning how to spend it and what do to. How to enjoy my time in my game.

"Acknowledgement of being outclassed"? What are you talking about?

Anyone who willingly put himself in that position is... well, we all operate on different processing powers.

How the usual suspects see themselves:


1730383289575.jpeg


How most players view them:

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ab1se0dkeCU


;)
 
My typical response is: anyone who chooses Solo/PG for some hypothetical advantage is also, in my experience, the type of player that isn’t fun to play with. I’d also much rather play in Open with like-minded players than be annoyed by unsportsmanlike behavior of the usual suspects.
Which I agree with in principal, I'd rather not have to interact with such people either. However where you and I split on this path is that the problem for me is, you are still having to play with them (in the context of Powerplay).
 
Monitoring player feedback is just like "The cheques in the post" :ROFLMAO:
Its not going to happen.

O7

Monitoring player feedback is what (for example, off the top of my head) lead to the reduction in price of the FdL, ship repairs, auto-route plotting and a myriad of other features and changes we as players take for granted and assume now as the norm.

To an extent, its always been a part of Elites development, however its always been a question of who's feedback are they listening to.
 
Monitoring player feedback is what (for example, off the top of my head) lead to the reduction in price of the FdL, ship repairs, auto-route plotting and a myriad of other features and changes.

To an extent, its always been a part of Elites development, however its always been a question of who's feedback are they listening to.
True but my guess is PP2 will be a huge success with casuals in all modes and wont get changed, plus with the announcement of settlement expansions there's not a snowball in hells chance they will allow PvP to effect that, you wouldn't have enough chips for the salt.

O7
 
...

To be succint, powerplay in its early era had a very strong Open Only community. For a player (who had previously conducted such gameplay in Open) to move their activities to one of the other modes due to them being unable to compete and succeed in that mode against an opponent, thereby circumventing potential interaction with them, is an acknowledgement of being outclassed by that opponent.
But does that ever happen? It seems to me that someone who is a member of a strong Open-only community is unlikely to switch their behaviour so completely. Conversely, someone who is playing in PG or Solo because they prefer that type of gameplay wasn't ever in the Open-only community anyway.

That's what some of us are always banging on about. Mode choice is usually nothing to do with being "outclassed"; it's just gameplay preference.

And yes, FD have said they'll assess feedback on this. That's the only reason I bother posting in this thread! I don't believe they could make an Open-only feature work, but I wouldn't put it past them to badly damage the game by trying.
 
True but my guess is PP2 will be a huge success with casuals in all modes and wont get changed, plus with the announcement of settlement expansions there's not a snowball in hells chance they will allow PvP to effect that, you wouldn't have enough chips for the salt.

O7
I can see it being a success, I just wonder how those playing it will find it once the first big 'Faction vs. Faction' moment in it kicks off.

Regarding colonisation, 5 will get you 10 though someone will work out a way to weaponise colonisation, and loud 'all modes are equal' advocates and self-important PMF group leaders who've had their ego's stoked by FDEV for a decade will demand changes/complain to FDev, like occured with UA's.
 
But does that ever happen? It seems to me that someone who is a member of a strong Open-only community is unlikely to switch their behaviour so completely. Conversely, someone who is playing in PG or Solo because they prefer that type of gameplay wasn't ever in the Open-only community anyway.

That's what some of us are always banging on about. Mode choice is usually nothing to do with being "outclassed"; it's just gameplay preference.

And yes, FD have said they'll assess feedback on this. That's the only reason I bother posting in this thread! I don't believe they could make an Open-only feature work, but I wouldn't put it past them to badly damage the game by trying.

Brrokk, I can assure you it very much did, from my personal experience of the first six or so months of powerplay communities. When I say 'Open Only' in this context, it relates to Powerplay activities and how the average players in those communities naturally migrated (or were heavily encouraged by their peers) towards the most advantageous way to play a competitve game system, but how, in turn it killed the spirit of community that was being built around it. (e.g. Why get together in a wing to do a fortification run where some took on the role of topcover or pre-emptive interdictors, when you could do it risk free in Private or Solo where all 4 of you are shieldless cargo hulks? Why get a group together to go into a PP CZ where you might meet a rival player or wing and lose all your hard work, when you can go into the same CZ in solo or a PG and zero throttle turretboat while binge-watching Star Trek on your primary monitor?)

I personally I don't have an issue with folk playing to their preferred mode, until the moment that choice leverages an advantage in a competitive situation, to which the only counter is to adopt the same practice, if you get me?
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily Open-only, but at least weighted. Conflict Zones with real players provide a very different experience compared to PvE CZs. I’d expect the risk of encountering players to be rewarded, and player kills in that context should carry more weight on both the conflict outcome and combat bonds.

If there are player kills, then fine. Not just a plain bonus for being in open, because 99% of the time you'd be getting a bonus without extra risk.

Problem, its wide open to being exploited via collusion, as is any mechanic involving PvP where there is no real loss for losing (losing some credits doesn't count in ED, where credits are easy to come by).

Thing is, CZs can be much easier in Open and PG due to wings. You can rip through a high CZ in a few mins in a wing of 4, whereas in solo, you're going to take roughly 4 times as long and at higher risk from NPC.
 
Back
Top Bottom