The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[tekwerk]

For all the problems that the space game next door has, it at least has the cajones to make an mmo an mmo. Ain't no solo in SC. The way I look at things, the best thing for the open/solo/pg divide in terms of BGS or in general is to copy something like WoW and give Open an incentive, vs taking something away from solo or pg. Make open count 10x towards BGS and give a credit and material boost for grinding in open, maybe 4 instead of 3 materials and a 20% credit boost. WoW gives an xp bonus for being in its open world PvP server to encourage people to use it.
The biggest problem that bgs has is botters. They can operate in solo with impunity, and you can't "fill buckets" against a machine that doesn't need to eat, sleep, or work. And that one person can deploy ten of against you. If you give humans an edge in terms of contribution, it might discourage bot use, or at least make those bots vulnerable.
The way I look at it, if I wanted to play a solo space game I'd sooner go for something like X, Strike Suit Zero, Everspace, Stellaris... way better options. The emergent gameplay you get from Elite is its draw. Why handicap one of its most unique features?

 

[Darrack]

Ain't no solo in SC

SC isnt a game, and its rubbish as a multiplayer Alfa.

WoW and give Open an incentive, vs taking something away from solo or pg

WoW gives no incentive, first and foremost its a PVE MMO, PvP is separate unless you are on a separate server (Open pvp) which still has safe zones.
By far the biggest server populations were PVE.

WoW gives an xp bonus for being in its open world PvP server to encourage people to use it

It failed, have you played a PvP server lately? Nearly as toxic as EVE

They can operate in solo with impunity

We in Solo go by the same rules as Open, there is no advantage other than not having to deal with pad blockers and muppets.

If you give humans an edge in terms of contribution, it might discourage bot use

Where's the Bot use?

solo space game I'd sooner go for something like X, Strike Suit Zero, Everspace, Stellaris... way better options. The emergent gameplay you get from Elite is its draw.

None of these games come close to Elite for a solo experience, they are too predictable and even in Solo i can still talk to folks and if i wish, join them in Open.

Welcome to 3310, thread is back up and running.
Bingo cards at the ready

O7

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

For all the problems that the space game next door has, it at least has the cajones to make an mmo an mmo. Ain't no solo in SC. The way I look at things, the best thing for the open/solo/pg divide in terms of BGS or in general is to copy something like WoW and give Open an incentive, vs taking something away from solo or pg. Make open count 10x towards BGS and give a credit and material boost for grinding in open, maybe 4 instead of 3 materials and a 20% credit boost. WoW gives an xp bonus for being in its open world PvP server to encourage people to use it.
The biggest problem that bgs has is botters. They can operate in solo with impunity, and you can't "fill buckets" against a machine that doesn't need to eat, sleep, or work. And that one person can deploy ten of against you. If you give humans an edge in terms of contribution, it might discourage bot use, or at least make those bots vulnerable.
The way I look at it, if I wanted to play a solo space game I'd sooner go for something like X, Strike Suit Zero, Everspace, Stellaris... way better options. The emergent gameplay you get from Elite is its draw. Why handicap one of its most unique features?

Upvoted because you're pushing in the right direction, but some of these concepts are problematic to implement. Botting is definitely a compelling reason to insist participants are instanceable by humans. Although another mitigation is to force instances to "end" (e.g. by ramping NPC intensity). That doesn't compete with those that bot and hack though.

 

[Darrack]

Botting is definitely a compelling reason to insist participants are instanceable by humans

Im still waiting for someone to actually give an example of botting in ED

O7

 

[Brrokk]

For all the problems that the space game next door has, it at least has the cajones to make an mmo an mmo. Ain't no solo in SC. The way I look at things, the best thing for the open/solo/pg divide in terms of BGS or in general is to copy something like WoW and give Open an incentive, vs taking something away from solo or pg. Make open count 10x towards BGS and give a credit and material boost for grinding in open, maybe 4 instead of 3 materials and a 20% credit boost. WoW gives an xp bonus for being in its open world PvP server to encourage people to use it.
The biggest problem that bgs has is botters. They can operate in solo with impunity, and you can't "fill buckets" against a machine that doesn't need to eat, sleep, or work. And that one person can deploy ten of against you. If you give humans an edge in terms of contribution, it might discourage bot use, or at least make those bots vulnerable.
The way I look at it, if I wanted to play a solo space game I'd sooner go for something like X, Strike Suit Zero, Everspace, Stellaris... way better options. The emergent gameplay you get from Elite is its draw. Why handicap one of its most unique features?

I understand the motivation for these kinds of suggestions, but I think they misunderstand what the BGS is for. More seriously, I don't think it's always realised what a disaster any Open-only incentive would be for most of us.

Consider what Solo players would do if an Open-only incentive existed. If it wasn't much, they'd just ignore it. But if it was significant it wouldn't take long for the solution to occur to them: fly in Open, but whenever a hollow square appears, go into the Contacts tab and block the player. (The hollow square would remain on the radar, but if any interdiction attempt was made, both parties would have their own empty instance). The play of the Solo players wouldn't be affected in the slightest and they'd have their "Open" reward, but everyone else's instancing would probably be wrecked!

An Open-only incentive would therefore have the effect of changing ED into a solo game; the opposite of the intended effect.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Im still waiting for someone to actually give an example of botting in ED

O7

Generally the evidence is supplied to FDev, rather than heads-up the botters before they're caught. And forget botters. There is plenty of video evidence on youtube afaik of the effectiveness of AFKing. Some PvE situations are so badly designed that this can be done essentially ad infinitum to massively imbalance certain operations (and no, I'm not going to tell you which ones).

Of course in open these AFKers can at least be found (shamed) and destroyed by high-DPS player ships (potentially losing the PvE "currency" they were accumulating). In PG, not only is that not possible, but hacks can be applied without respectable players being able to even flag it up (or do you not believe in hacks either?). Some casual players underestimate how seriously some no-lifers take the game and how low they'll go to "win at all costs". Funny thing is, in the early days of powerplay, before my time, I believe bots were discovered, actually in open . They were utilising an exploit to damage Mahon powerplay I believe - although I can't cite you a reference I'm afraid.

 

[Riverside]

I think FDev already played their hand on this topic with the splitting of 'Open' into Odyssey and Horizons live, and legacy. Even if there were more incentive for players to embrace the benefits of Open play you still won't be able to meet everyone, and with consoles always having separate instancing we never have been able to meet every visitor to the system anyway.

I'm currently engaged in what is becoming a long term conflict over territory (they invaded one of 'my' systems & have the temerity to try to stay in a clearly active system when there are so many abandoned systems to play with). I'd really like to be able to meet them in-game, to interact, communicate & negotiate a treaty but they are on PS4 so I can't. To them I am a faceless automaton, I can imagine them thinking I must be cheating or botting or whatever because they've never actually met me, it's what others (who I have eventually met, probably the same people Bulb suggests above) have assumed. I'd really like cross-play to be a thing to improve communication, but not to make the game enforce it.

I'd encourage & willingly help anyone that wants to to give open a try but I don't think that's something FDev encourages any more & I think that's a shame, although it does mean I don't get hassled as much it also means I don't meet as many other players. I'd still rather have the shared BGS than an offline game where we all have our own galaxy to manipulate uncontested though.

We know if the game were changed to be open only there are players who would stop playing rather than adapt, but we don't know how many would start playing (or return) if the game did change, and we don't know how popular it could have been if it had always been that way from the start.

I'm happy enough to only meet other players that want to have the possibility to meet & interact with me but I would like to be able to meet all of the 'open' players no matter the platform or game version.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I don't think that "incentives" are going to make a difference... the choice of the game mode simply depends on too many variables. And these go on a wide range... i.e. from newbies being in solo/PG because worried of losing ship with no rebuy, to experienced players because they don't want to be seen or disturbed. I'm not going to judge what is right and what is not (besides I have a personal opinion)... but I just believe that "groups" (in the meaning of squadrons, PMFs, PP conglomerates, etc.) might make a difference.

I mean, "these are our house rules [which include open play only, among others]" -> so if CMDR wants to play in such group, then had to stick to those rules.

Reality is that there's in practice a non-existent % of groups which are promoting/adopting "open only" or "as much as possible open only" house rules.

Such groups may mind solely about "their own" (..I wonder here how it could be possible, anyway) business and hence open and solo/PG doesn't seem any different... but on the other side, I believe it's cringy to see groups (even large ones) with various degree of aggro-behaviour for their business (-> powerplay is aggro by default, no matter what one may think), to conduct hostilities against other players' groups exploiting using and/or condoning the use of solo/PG modes to avoid any direct confrontation [for the fun of it] or to avoid risk of losses (-> merits?).

Blocking is a different thing (besides there are groups with a no-blocking house rule too).

 

[Hellrider]

I don't think it's always realised what a disaster any Open-only incentive would be for most of us.

Horror of open only, joe playing in random hu wei sector a b-2-2 could see whole 0 players yearly, instead whole 0 players yearly.
Also, let's think, about which type of people play in modes.
I don't think, that solo/pg players are pvpers, gankers or other people of this kind.
So this people in open could make 0 additional threat.

An Open-only incentive would therefore have the effect of changing ED into a solo game; the opposite of the intended effect.

Because doing anthing in solo totally isn't similar

It's simple, adding any "boosts" from playing in open could require removing blacklist feature
You see possible issues, but each issue has solution.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Bethesda tried incentivising the PVP servers for FO76 with increased XP.
The result was PVE players allegedly farming it, getting upset that they were being 'griefed' resulting in Bethesda 'nerfing' the PVP (somehow?) and the PVPers left and the PVP servers closed down.
Thus rather a waste whichever way you look at it.

Edit; I should note that my source for this was a rant by a PVPer bemoaning Bethesda's decision to close the PVP servers.

 

[Northpin]

For all the problems that the space game next door has, it at least has the cajones to make an mmo an mmo. Ain't no solo in SC. The way I look at things, the best thing for the open/solo/pg divide in terms of BGS or in general is to copy something like WoW and give Open an incentive, vs taking something away from solo or pg. Make open count 10x towards BGS and give a credit and material boost for grinding in open, maybe 4 instead of 3 materials and a 20% credit boost. WoW gives an xp bonus for being in its open world PvP server to encourage people to use it.

ED is not a PVP game, it's a game that allows PVP - quite an important distinction and apparently people have a hard time wrapping this up in their minds.
The modes are simply nothing more than player filters.

The biggest problem that bgs has is botters.

If you suspect accounts that are botting, you can report them. If the said accounts are still live 1-2 months later, they were not bot accounts.
Other than that, most of the time it's a case of: "I lost, they must be cheating" mentality

They can operate in solo with impunity, and you can't "fill buckets" against a machine that doesn't need to eat, sleep, or work. And that one person can deploy ten of against you. If you give humans an edge in terms of contribution, it might discourage bot use, or at least make those bots vulnerable.

Well, BGSs biggest problem is it favors big, organized groups. I've been steamrolled in my small bgs backyard several times by bigger groups to the point that i gave up this aspect completely.
And no, Nothing OPEN only would do anything to help against botters, the only thing that could work is reporting suspicious activities to FDev.
A Botter (if they do exist actually) will not be harmed at all by an Open-Only restriction. Someone tech-savy enough and with enough resources to run several bot accounts, will also be tech savy enough to block connections from other players at firewall level - they will be like in solo but with all the OpenOnly benefits.

The way I look at it, if I wanted to play a solo space game I'd sooner go for something like X, Strike Suit Zero, Everspace, Stellaris... way better options. The emergent gameplay you get from Elite is its draw.

You'd better play those games, because ED is not going to change now in its 10th year of operation.
It was designed like this and will keep running as it did since launch.

 

[Morbad]

Any reasonable criticism of a hypothetical Open-only mode or Open play incentives has to assume changes to the network model and matchmaking implementation that would make it impossible to carve out a de facto solo/private mode within Open. These would include, but not necessarily be limited to, relay servers (which, for what it's worth, wouldn't be new to the game) to prevent blocking connections from other clients and the removal of block-based instancing weights.

ED is not a PVP game, it's a game that allows PVP - quite an important distinction and apparently people have a hard time wrapping this up in their minds.

What's the distinction?

 

[varonica]

What's the distinction?

If I was to try and answer that question I would say it's a game that allows players, through choice, to completely avoid direct conflict with other players, which ED does by having Solo and PG modes. On the other hand a PvP game would be one that didn't allow players to opt out of direct conflict with other players. But there's a huge range of PvP game types possible, all the way from MMO's that allow players to combat, or run away, done that plenty of times in MMO's, to FPS PvP's where the entire point of the game is to go out and fight other players. There will probably be as many answers as there are players though, it's one of those sorts of questions.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

ED is not a PVP game, it's a game that allows PVP - quite an important distinction and apparently people have a hard time wrapping this up in their minds.
The modes are simply nothing more than player filters.



If you suspect accounts that are botting, you can report them. If the said accounts are still live 1-2 months later, they were not bot accounts.
Other than that, most of the time it's a case of: "I lost, they must be cheating" mentality



Well, BGSs biggest problem is it favors big, organized groups. I've been steamrolled in my small bgs backyard several times by bigger groups to the point that i gave up this aspect completely.
And no, Nothing OPEN only would do anything to help against botters, the only thing that could work is reporting suspicious activities to FDev.
A Botter (if they do exist actually) will not be harmed at all by an Open-Only restriction. Someone tech-savy enough and with enough resources to run several bot accounts, will also be tech savy enough to block connections from other players at firewall level - they will be like in solo but with all the OpenOnly benefits.



You'd better play those games, because ED is not going to change now in its 10th year of operation.
It was designed like this and will keep running as it did since launch.

Massively optimistic about how well botting and other exploits are dealt with in this game. Some powerplay exploits have been there since its dawn. And they are indeed game breaking.

 

[Morbad]

On the other hand a PvP game would be one that didn't allow players to opt out of direct conflict with other players.

I once spent the better part of three consecutive public Battlefield 1942 matches working with a dozen random players from both teams to get a Jeep balanced on a landing craft, then using a submarine and a destroyer to flip the Jeep on to an aircraft carrier. There were casualties, but no one just assumed they had to kill each other because they were in a multiplayer shooter on opposite sides. Some people felt driving a Jeep around the flight deck of the Shokaku was a more worthy challenge.

Very few PvP games categorically bar players from holding their fire.

 

[varonica]

Very few PvP games categorically bar players from holding their fire.

Oh agreed, I have had fun on BF DC maps, that doesn't mean the entire point of the game is for one team to shoot all members of the other team, and if someone who wasn't part of the fun decided to land a plane on top of the lot of you and kill you all there's nothing to stop them.

 

[Northpin]

Massively optimistic about how well botting and other exploits are dealt with in this game. Some powerplay exploits have been there since its dawn. And they are indeed game breaking.

Well, not all cheaters reported proved to be actual cheaters.
So i would assume not all presumed botters were actually botters.

Some people do tend to cry Wolf more often than they should.

hese would include, but not necessarily be limited to, relay servers (which, for what it's worth, wouldn't be new to the game) to prevent blocking connections from other clients and the removal of block-based instancing weights.

Having all connection that now are p2p going through relay servers would incur some hefty costs (they will need to have turn servers spread all over the world to minimize latency between geographically local players) while they will generally actually increase latency because the connectivity instead of being a<>b will be a>c>b respectively b>c>a
Given the fact that ED is basically Free to Play - not a chance

What's the distinction?

there is not a single game objective requiring a pvp interaction.
the game functions as a pure pve game with a layer ontop that allows player interactions.

edit: and i would say that basically any pvp interaction will diminish the efficiency of getting results in any game activity (be it bgs, power play or simply faffing around doing missions) since all these activities are pure PVE activities.
PVP is simply allowed as a unpoliced extension of social interactions permitted by the pg/open modes
Also PG is not a safe mode, you can be killed in PG as easy as you can in open.

So i would say ED is a pve game allowing social interactions (which some of those interactions coming down as pvp)

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Well, not all cheaters reported proved to be actual cheaters.
So i would assume not all presumed botters were actually botters.

For sure, in fact possibly most. But that's not what you were saying. I could say more about what a professional would say re: cheat prevention in Elite, but it would count as criticism of FDev and I'm not dying on that hill.

 

[Morbad]

there is not a single game objective requiring a pvp interaction.
the game functions as a pure pve game with a layer ontop that allows player interactions.

It's an open world, near sandbox, game with no pre-defined objectives. On top of that there is scarcely a tool provided that cannot be leveraged against other player characters in some fashion.

edit: and i would say that basically any pvp interaction will diminish the efficiency of getting results in any game activity (be it bgs, power play or simply faffing around doing missions) since all these activities are pure PVE activities.
PVP is simply allowed as a unpoliced extension of social interactions permitted by the pg/open modes
Also PG is not a safe mode, you can be killed in PG as easy as you can in open.

So i would say ED is a pve game allowing social interactions (which some of those interactions coming down as pvp)

I think the whole PvE/PvP dichotomy is a false one. If player controlled entities exist to interact with, then those entities are part of the environment. One may be able to avoid direct interactions with them, but no more so than one can avoid anything else. Nothing mandates my CMDR fight NPCs or do missions or anything else and the PvP interactions I've had were fundamentally no different from any of those things; they were less predictable and the combat skill ceiling is rather higher, but it's still me playing my character in a fantasy depiction of the galaxy immersing myself in the encounters he has along the way. If NPCs were less idiotic and players less offensively out-of-character in chat, I wouldn't even have to know the difference.

As far as I am concerned, if there is another player somewhere, it's a PvP game, and a direct PvP game only requires the ability to directly harm another player controlled character or asset.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Massively optimistic about how well botting and other exploits are dealt with in this game. Some powerplay exploits have been there since its dawn. And they are indeed game breaking.

Let's not forget what happened some years ago...

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/ahd3gg

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/ahd3gg/the_death_of_our_new_torval_experiment/
a lesson never learnt.