The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Rubbernuke]

No but Solo is, you wait ages for a pirate then two come at once

O7

I do find it amusing when people who mission stack complain about having several pirates to deal with.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its blatant double standards when players bail on other players that do what NPCs do.

One is PvP, the other is PvE. PvP is optional in this game.

Sandro acknowledged the difference:

However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

One is PvP, the other is PvE. PvP is optional in this game.

Sandro acknowledged the difference:

But its still piracy- the only difference is that with players you actually have to pay attention. Ironically even in solo players seem to forget this when the NPC 'griefs' them.

Its also funny that you selectively use Sandro when I could have also popped on Sandros opinions on Open being harder and should be better rewarded........can of worms and all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But its still piracy- the only difference is that with players you actually have to pay attention. Ironically even in solo players seem to forget this when the NPC 'griefs' them.

Indeed - however player interaction is voluntary and the designated target does not need to play along with the desires of the player that chose to target them.

As mentioned earlier, it's up to each player what level of forced interaction they are prepared to accept - and if the attacker has no obligation to provide fun for the target when forcing an interaction upon said target, the target has no obligation to provide fun for the attacker in any way.

Its also funny that you selectively use Sandro when I could have also popped on Sandros opinions on Open being harder and should be better rewarded........can of worms and all.

He has lots of handy quotes to choose from....

 

[Fizzatron]

Names like this just reinforce why Solo is the way forward, for my immersion anyroad.

O7

It kinda has the school nick name sound* to it..

*I was going to say ring, but..

 

[Sakashiro]

Its blatant double standards when players bail on other players that do what NPCs do.

Which is even more true now that Thargoids imitate gankers to a T.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed - however player interaction is voluntary and the designated target does not need to play along with the desires of the player that chose to target them.

As mentioned earlier, it's up to each player what level of forced interaction they are prepared to accept - and if the attacker has no obligation to provide fun for the target when forcing an interaction upon said target, the target has no obligation to provide fun for the attacker in any way.

And unfortunately it seems that runs counter to playing in a level Open mode and that when the player comes across a difficult bit they...er...stop playing and use the menu, rather than play in an appropriate mode.

He has lots of handy quotes to choose from....

Its strange that when I post said quotes its "its too old" "Sando is no longer on the project" but when you post them its "100% legit cast iron guv"

 

[Robert Maynard]

And unfortunately it seems that runs counter to playing in a level Open mode and that when the player comes across a difficult bit they...er...stop playing and use the menu, rather than play in an appropriate mode.

That'll be because menu exit, according to Frontier, is permissible at any time (and they know that some players won't agree).

Its strange that when I post said quotes its "its too old" "Sando is no longer on the project" but when you post them its "100% legit cast iron guv"

Which quotes, relating to the game as it is, were too old?

Some quotes were speculative, i.e. things put forward with no etas, no guarantees of implementation.

 

[Sakashiro]

Think of the mass blockers the next time you get stuck in a Braben tunnel because the matchmaking servers take too long to respond.

 

[Fizzatron]

That'll be because menu exit, according to Frontier, is permissible at any time (and they know that some players won't agree).

Which quotes, relating to the game as it is, were too old?

Some quotes were speculative, i.e. things put forward with no etas, no guarantees of implementation.

I see both sides honestly. It's really an impossible situation to have the intended chaos of many different people playing a game together online but without some of the 'extra' unwanted features that come with it, so it has to be a matter of mitigation at best.

That being said, I do have to agree that by selecting the Open mode one is categorically agreeing to be open, as it were, to all the permitted interactions that the mode allows. But, I also agree that for consistency, the framework should be improved so that hi-sec systems, such as Shinrarta, should really not be the gankers paradise that it currently is. Though it could be said that Deciat, being a Feudal system, might suit that sort of thing better, even if it's hi-security, and having to traverse certain areas of a system should reflect better the rule, or lack of, law.

Having a system security presence, taking into account the security status and government type of a given sector of a system, that may actively patrol and scan for wanted ships in supercruise, which then interdicts them could go a long way to alleviating the issue of camper gankers. I know there's a random chance of getting pulled and then there's the ATF type response, but even if a ganker can take them all on no problem, if it keeps happening over and over with the possibility of hitting a wanted status that revokes the permit to that system, I think it would go a long way to fix this particular issue.

But if one goes into a lo-sec feudal / anarchy system then it's on you to go prepared.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That'll be because menu exit, according to Frontier, is permissible at any time (and they know that some players won't agree).

And I don't, along with a healthy chunk of this thread.

Which quotes, relating to the game as it is, were too old?

Some quotes were speculative, i.e. things put forward with no etas, no guarantees of implementation.

Pretty much all the ones where Sandro talks about weighted open, Open for PP and that modes are not equal- all views that support whats being talked about here in this thread.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That being said, I do have to agree that by selecting the Open mode one is categorically agreeing to be open, as it were, to all the permitted interactions that the mode allows.

Which has never been the case in Open - as the ability to shoot at anything one instances with has existed for as long as being able to leave the game at any time (possibly subject to a short delay) and the ability to block any CMDR.

Each of us has a view how Open (or an additional Open game mode) should be - we don't all share the same opinions though.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And I don't, along with a healthy chunk of this thread.

As Frontier acknowledged a long time ago.

Pretty much all the ones where Sandro talks about weighted open, Open for PP and that modes are not equal- all views that support whats being talked about here in this thread.

Those are "might have been" quotes that didn't make the cut, or pass the investigative phase (to our knowledge) - noting that in the most recent ones he was very clear to state that they were an investigation and not a fait accompli.

 

[Fizzatron]

Which has never been the case in Open - as the ability to shoot at anything one instances with has existed for as long as being able to leave the game at any time (possibly subject to a short delay) and the ability to block any CMDR.

I understand, leaving to menu is a valid option and you are correct to point it out. Just that I think it would be better to offer a solution in game rather playing the disappearing card.

Each of us has a view how Open (or an additional Open game mode) should be - we don't all share the same opinions though.

It is a valid observation, though it is up to Frontier to set the boundaries for Open at the end of the day.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I understand, leaving to menu is a valid option and you are correct to point it out. Just that I think it would be better to offer a solution in game rather playing the disappearing card.


It is a valid observation, though it is up to Frontier to set the boundaries for Open at the end of the day.

Arguably the boundaries were set long ago.

 

[Morbad]

One is PvP, the other is PvE. PvP is optional in this game.

Sandro acknowledged the difference:

The lackluster psychosocial elements of PvE aren't a defining PvE element, but an example of flawed PvE.

 

[Riverside]

The lackluster psychosocial elements of PvE aren't a defining PvE element, but an example of flawed PvE.

If the game had been single player only I think it's fair to say more time probably would have been devoted to improving the intelligence of the AI rather than balancing & rebalancing PvP as happened for a year or so after launch, because the AI would have been a major focus of play. As it is (I believe) the AI is more about background flavour & things to do & the focus has become more & more about social interactions via the BGS, discovery tags and the potential for direct PvP conflict & cooperation. The NPCs are (in my view) there to give new players something to practice on & after that just cannon fodder where how many can be killed is more important than whether they can be outsmarted or killed at all.

I also think the Thargoid stuff is intended to be the Player vs Dungeon Master challenge because so many have not engaged with direct PvP, factions or powerplay. The game has evolved to cater for the playerbase it has attracted.

 

[Fizzatron]

Arguably the boundaries were set long ago.

True, but they move once in a while

I'm also speaking as someone who generally prefers to play in open (but I have about 3.5bn in just cash assets so it's nothing to me at this point), but my son was put off it pretty quickly courtesy of the usual interactions this thread discusses, so it's unfortunate to me that the multiplayer aspect of the game can be spoiled when it could go the other way.

 

[Ozric]

Oh look, I'm back again to tell you all to knock it off.

And for good measure remember to discuss the post and not the poster.

you'd think after all these years I wouldn't have to keep coming back and saying the same things over and over... hmmm...

 

[Robert Maynard]

True, but they move once in a while

To a degree, e.g. the block feature has only ever been strengthened and made easier to use over the years and the harassment policy was reiterated after some PvE PG "invasions" where some of those booted tried to get back in using alts.

I'm also speaking as someone who generally prefers to play in open (but I have about 3.5bn in just cash assets so it's nothing to me at this point), but my son was put off it pretty quickly courtesy of the usual interactions this thread discusses, so it's unfortunate to me that the multiplayer aspect of the game can be spoiled when it could go the other way.

Not everyone enjoys forced interactions with others - something that those doing the forcing don't seem to care about (or do so specifically because they know it won't be enjoyable for the targeted player).