Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[relayer]

... the bleating of blind fanboys: "the game is perfect in every way."

You must be reading another thread. The only uniting feeling is that the modes are mostly good as they are. Could stand a bit of tweaking though. There's been many suggestions in this thread about a lot of the game mechanics, with differing opinions.

The main argument is about whether forcing someone to play another way for the enjoyment of another player is ethical. People who don't wish to play this way have a choice, thanks to FD.

 

[Mohrgan]

I didn't mean to leave this out; in the long post, it got lost in my quote-splitting.

All games impose rules that may or may not conflict with a gamer's so-called "ethics." Some games are more stringent than others - but, as soon as a developer tries to cater to everyone - the lowest common denominator - the game will suffer from a pure design standpoint. Tightly-conceived design choices are chopped apart, and casualized to oblivion. Various and meaningful gameplay choices are dulled out - because that is what the greatest number of people can understand.

Ok, you talk about the effect of a developer designing to attract the highest number of players. Not why players should be forced to play within those 'Tightly-conceived design choices' because a few players want to. The designers know that many players don't want those constraints, so they create ways to support all kinds. Some games have separate servers, some have flags or sliders. It seems to be recognized that some activities aren;t attractive to all players so designs reflect that.

But, why should it not be so? If the game's rules allow for avoiding certain actions, why/how could that be considered objectionable? I get, from the conversations here, that some players feel that if everyone doesn't play the way they feel is right, that those other players should have to pay some penalty. Why should one set of gamer ethics override another, when they don;t have to?

 

[Vasious]

Though it isn't an Open or Solo thing

The Duke is right that there is a resistance to things not being static.

Yes, people want things to be static.

Any time there is less than the expected profit from a trade run or a RES bounty haul, threads pop up demanding to know why they were nerfed and "no fun"

So as much as we all say we want a dynamic economy and dynamic BGS, it seems like just talk due to as soon as markets even seem to respond to supply and demand, it is derided as a nerf making the game less fun and the profit margins must be returned.
As soon as the RES spawn less that big fat bounties that same is said, even if the pirates in that system have been slaughtered whole sale for days on end, and it would be reasonable to expect their number to thin out or dry up, but if they do, it is an evil evil no fun nerf.

Everyone says they want a dynamic system, but only if it allows them to still go to the exact same place do the exact same thing and see no diminishing returns or consequence from what they do, bonus points for then calling it a grind.

 

[LetoAtreides2]

Ok, you talk about the effect of a developer designing to attract the highest number of players. Not why players should be forced to play within those 'Tightly-conceived design choices' because a few players want to. The designers know that many players don't want those constraints, so they create ways to support all kinds. Some games have separate servers, some have flags or sliders. It seems to be recognized that some activities aren;t attractive to all players so designs reflect that.

But, why should it not be so? If the game's rules allow for avoiding certain actions, why/how could that be considered objectionable? I get, from the conversations here, that some players feel that if everyone doesn't play the way they feel is right, that those other players should have to pay some penalty. Why should one set of gamer ethics override another, when they don;t have to?

Nothing within the game's rules should be considered objectionable. My point is that, from a design standpoint, continually changing the rules in order to try to appease everyone will inevitably lead to everything in the game feeling like a "cop-out."

 

[Mouse]

But, with their clip size? You'd have to reload every 20 minutes if you were doing any serious PVE.

If your foolish and waste all your ammo of course... you also have to with every other ammo clipped weapon.

 

[LetoAtreides2]

If your foolish and waste all your ammo of course... you also have to with every other ammo clipped weapon.

Why should it take 2+ hits for a high-powered missile to cut through the hull of a sidewinder - the smallest ship in the game?

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

If hypothetically there was even, FD wouldn't have even completed the kickstarter and we'd all still be playing something else. In return, how about if only PvP wasn't enabled except outside of designated arenas at all, open would be a much nicer, much more populated place. One that wasn't regarded as a horrible place to play by the vast majority of the community and we wouldn't need the other modes as a primary way to play just to get away from malicious abuse.

how do you know fd wouldn't have completed kickstarter? Maybe not with the same people but it's still not going to be completed.

You proved my point. Open would have been balanced and a much nicer place. It would have to be.

If anything is FD's fault it was letting certain people buy the game, but they couldn't know how they would act until after they are in the game. Your blaming the horse for the jockey's handling of the horse.

FD are the jockey in this situation. They control where the game goes.

 

[Faded Glory]

Taken care of.

Aww. I was going to ask, but thank you.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

bonus points for then calling it a grind.

Thankfully i'd finished my coffee before i read that, otherwise i'd be cleaning my monitor. +rep

 

[Mouse]

Why should it take 2+ hits for a high-powered missile to cut through the hull of a sidewinder - the smallest ship in the game?

Why should a missile destroy someone outright? And I have an Eagle.. think it may be smaller than a sidewinder and close... and with hull re-enforcers and military grade hull I still get waxed by 2 to 3 missiles. A missile isn't sure death but it means either get the heck out of the area or kill that missile armed ship quick..

- - - Updated - - -

how do you know fd wouldn't have completed kickstarter? Maybe not with the same people but it's still not going to be completed.

You proved my point. Open would have been balanced and a much nicer place. It would have to be.

FD are the jockey in this situation. They control where the game goes.

Not really.. FD is the track ... the Jockey controls where the horse goes.. even off the track

 

[Mohrgan]

Nothing within the game's rules should be considered objectionable. My point is that, from a design standpoint, continually changing the rules in order to try to appease everyone will inevitably lead to everything in the game feeling like a "cop-out."

They have never changed the rules concerning the Modes. Why should anyone's gamer ethics be forced on another? That was the question. You talked about the developers dilemma over how to create the best environment, but you have never said why you think one set of gamer ethics should dominate another players view?

- - - Updated - - -

how do you know fd wouldn't have completed kickstarter? Maybe not with the same people but it's still not going to be completed.

You proved my point. Open would have been balanced and a much nicer place. It would have to be.

FD are the jockey in this situation. They control where the game goes.

Jorden, you have returned. I asked you to answer a question during your last exchange. Why should one set of gamer ethics be forced on another? Do you think you could take the time to give an answer? You are in a talking mood anyway.

 

[Mouse]

Why should it take 2+ hits for a high-powered missile to cut through the hull of a sidewinder - the smallest ship in the game?

if you want we could be realistic.. the joke among fighter pilots is they are called Missiles not Hittiles because they miss most of the time.. so would you be crying nerf if missiles could destroy in one hit yet they only hit only 10% of the time, 1% if countermeasures?

 

[JuicyFruits]

IMO the biggest #1 problem with open is that there's no reason to even play in open unless you are looking for a fight. If frontier can ever fix that problem, that'd be a huge step forward. But right now I admit I have no idea on how to tackle this issue, without screwing solo players.

The problem #2 is that even if you are looking for a fight... its a big unorganized mess. There is no system to encourage PVPers to fight each others. And there is no system to adequately protect traders/PVEers.

I'll tell you something ; I played EVE and was never "ganked" or "killed" when I didn't want to. EVE is organized. There are high security sectors, med / low and null sec. In high / med sec, you are fairly safe. The security service ships react FAST to any criminal activity, and they will quickly dispatch anything that remotely attempt to harm you. They are slower to respond (and also weaker) in low sec. Finally there is nothing to protect you in null sec.

I spent most of my time in high/med. But when I wanted to have some fun I ventured into low/null. And got killed. And it was fun.

At the same time, EVE also has tons of systems that makes pvp "meaningful". Its not only players ganking random players. They are fighting for something, usually. Either ressources, control of a territory, player owned station, etc. Thats why PVPers are actually BUSY fighting other PVPers, and NOT chasing traders in boredom.

I tell you, the way to fix open is something like this. Make it organized. The galaxy is HUGE, there is space for everyone. Create "safe"ish zones for PVE players. Create combat zones (with meaningful PVP content) for pvpers. You cant just dump both kind of players into an empty universe and hope it'll work out.

 

[LetoAtreides2]

They have never changed the rules concerning the Modes. Why should anyone's gamer ethics be forced on another? That was the question. You talked about the developers dilemma over how to create the best environment, but you have never said why you think one set of gamer ethics should dominate another players view?

I did answer the question -allowing one set of "gamer ethics" to dominate another is necessary in good games; otherwise, the game will suffer from trying to please too many people.

 

[Faded Glory]

I did answer the question -allowing one set of "gamer ethics" to dominate another is necessary in good games; otherwise, the game will suffer from trying to please too many people.

Then perhaps you need to accept that FD have chosen to allow a different set of gamer ethics to yours to dominate the game. They have allowed that anybody can play in any mode at any time according to their choice. Perhaps the game suffers for that for you, but obviously that is not the unanimous view.

 

[Mohrgan]

I did answer the question -allowing one set of "gamer ethics" to dominate another is necessary in good games; otherwise, the game will suffer from trying to please too many people.

But, then we have the qualifier of 'good games'. We are right back to square one, where it's one view over another. This game has made it's choices. You agreed, through buying and playing the game, to the rules. Many find this to be a very 'good' game. The game has been clear, from the start, about how access would be handled. That should have told you that this wasn't a 'good' game for you.

 

[LetoAtreides2]

Then perhaps you need to accept that FD have chosen to allow a different set of gamer ethics to yours to dominate the game. They have allowed that anybody can play in any mode at any time according to their choice. Perhaps the game suffers for that for you, but obviously that is not the unanimous view.

I am willing to accept this as FD's design decision, sure. Do I think the game greatly suffers from this? Definitely.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Not really.. FD is the track ... the Jockey controls where the horse goes.. even off the track

It's the jockey's job to keep the horse on the track. The track is FD's plan for the game.

Jordan, you have returned. I asked you to answer a question during your last exchange. Why should one set of gamer ethics be forced on another? Do you think you could take the time to give an answer? You are in a talking mood anyway.

Sorry it's hard to keep track of all the responses. It's because it's either one or the other. Either the switching mode forces itself on open, or nonswitching forces itself on the other modes. There's no two ways about it. It's either one or the other. The switching meta prevails, or it's prevented from controlling everything.

 

[LetoAtreides2]

But, then we have the qualifier of 'good games'. We are right back to square one, where it's one view over another. This game has made it's choices. You agreed, through buying and playing the game, to the rules. Many find this to be a very 'good' game. The game has been clear, from the start, about how access would be handled. That should have told you that this wasn't a 'good' game for you.

You're right - never have I felt more buyer's remorse for a game than with this one.

 

[Mouse]

It's the jockey's job to keep the horse on the track. The track is FD's plan for the game.

Sorry it's hard to keep track of all the responses. It's because it's either one or the other. Either the switching mode forces itself on open, or nonswitching forces itself on the other modes. There's no two ways about it. It's either one or the other.

Thank you for proving my analogy Jordan. FD did give us the track and some jockeys are all over and not keeping the horses on the track.. so they blame the track not themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

You're right - never have I felt more buyer's remorse for a game than with this one.

And many people are elated with the game and even buying the expansion.