Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jockey79]

Oh I'm not going to PVP.. I just had a thought about someone trying to take an Canda or something in and was trying to remember what could and couldn't go in . It makes me wonder how long until the threads railing about it is unfair they can't take their A modded Conda, Asp, or Python in.

Well, if we use their logic, then it is "unfair" they can earn the money for that A spec 'Conda in CQC and troll open with it.
And there is no PvE missions or goals to stop them in their ghost arena with phantom credits coming to open to be griefers.

 

[willowfan]

First time I've ever seen a Sidewinder described as a tank!

 

[palazo]

Do you prefer to play chess against a computer or a living opponent (human, I assume)? I prefer the human opponent, so I prefer Open play. At the moment we just don't have the same stake in the game, though, traders and pirates. That has to be fixed, so it will be truly dangerous to live dangerously in ED.

The escape capsule thing just doesn't explain it, though. If I die in my current position 6000 light years from Sol, I'm instantly back at a station. Nothing is that fast. And I'm most likely to die falling into a sun, so how is the capsule escaping from that? We should have capsules, escape options, as well. But as I see it we have an EVE model at the moment, but without the escape capsule option. We respawn from a "save point" which is where we were last docked. Lore can say what it wants to, that's the in-game mechanic.

The losers will always pay the price, or they wouldn't be losing. Problem is that at the moment, if a trader loses they lose the rebuy value of their ship AND cargo, plus issue with missions if they were on any. Explorers lose all data gathered when out at sea. Random psychotic killers lose next to nothing (rebuy of ship). Without a penalty system that carries over after ship destruction and have lasting consequences, the PvP baddies have the easy time. We need to lose more for the killing of innocents.

S

Hello, I came back from Sagitarius Z. hehe "no comment"

I completely agree with you.

Also have to respect people who want to play against the computer instead of against a player, I remember my time as a child when it was the only thing that could be done and there were no MMO.

I feel good that Frontier assess the possibility of the continued existence of "soloplay" and the "pseudo-lan" mode "private group", this is positive.

I will give an example to see me going is similar:
In my case I do not use Facebook because I do not like, but I still communicating by other older social networks (irc, gtalk, forums, etc).

I do not like being forced to use Facebook removing all I use.

But I can not want facebook, have a chat with commands you talk to certain people or codes that friends and family will never realize, I see bad facebook ask you mix everything and pretend that everything goes well.

Some people do not want to use chat's and other complicated if, thus them all together into the same chat will be a problem sooner or later, will not understand anything of what is happening.

Therefore you can not do anything but, separate chats (impossible for frontier for now) or make coexist in harmony.

To live together in harmony:
A "PVP" (openplay player) can not get into your "solomode" to attack you when you trade, the player "PVE" should not be able to give undermainig at "PVP" on your system without anyone noticing or defend your system.

I think that some things should not be able to do in "solomode" is unfair to the player PVP and openplay the end hurts all the gameplay is like to do things invisibly.

I agree with the continued existence of the modes, but I think it is necessary that at least the powerplay should be controlled only by the open.

I am saying something different from what he said before.

Before:

OpenPlay update --------------update------------ ----> SoloMode and Private
SoloMode and Private -------- no / update -----> OpenPlay

I'm not okay with this.

For me it would be so.

Power Play

Power Play (Open Play)---------- update --------> Power Play (SoloMode and Private)
SoloMode and Private -----noupdate --------- PowerPlay (Open Play)

Everything else.

OpenPlay <--------- update------> SoloMode and Private
SoloMode and Private <--------- update------> SoloMode and Private

It could also encourage tasks performed in "solomode" to perform them taking more risks in "openplay" and those in "openplay" to make soome things in the "solomode", by events, not forcing everyone to do, such as:

Something like that:

The risky trader "Open Play", get more profit.

The bounty hunting the "SoloMode" level up faster fighter.

They are ideas, do not hit me. hehehe.

Coming from Z sagitarius I need some fuel.
Someone has some fuel.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They are ideas, do not hit me. hehehe.

Welcome back!

Seeking additional reward for playing in Open (in whatever role) has been suggested many times - Frontier's statement that all modes are equal and valid (in their opinion) does not tend to support such a proposal.

Players who contravene the rules of the game (cheating, etc.) are, from time to time, placed into the "shadowban" group for some time. Players in the "shadowban" group will only ever meet other players in this group and cannot meet players who are not in a "time out". Another aspect of the "shadowban" group is that players who are in it do not affect the shared galaxy state - they experience it but nothing they do can influence it. To seek to change the game such that players in Solo or Private Groups are treated in the same way (that Frontier considers to be a suitable punishment for unacceptable behaviour) would seem, to me at least, not to be an acceptable proposal.

 

[palazo]

Welcome back!

Seeking additional reward for playing in Open (in whatever role) has been suggested many times - Frontier's statement that all modes are equal and valid (in their opinion) does not tent to support such a proposal.

I think that from the beginning perhaps that was the idea of Frontier, I trust what you say.

But we must accept that both modes evolved in different use cases and new requirements, it was an evolution of the game, most players choose to use "openplay" for some things and "soloplay" for others.

Security for trade "soloplay".
Risk and fun for underminig "openplay" PVP.

Players who contravene the rules of the game (cheating, etc.) are, from time to time, placed into the "shadowban" group for some time. Players in the "shadowban" group will only ever meet other players in this group and cannot meet players who are not in a "time out". Another aspect of the "shadowban" group is that players who are in it do not affect the shared galaxy state - they experience it but nothing they do can influence it. To seek to change the game such that players in Solo or Private Groups are treated in the same way (that Frontier considers to be a suitable punishment for unacceptable behaviour) would seem, to me at least, not to be an acceptable proposal.

I like the idea of ​​shadowban, but I disagree with cheaters.
The cheater is trash PVP and PVE, mediocre people who hurt and bored with the game.

For the cheater must not put them on a shadowban, account must suspend them again and forever.

If cheaters begin to appear in the game everything will be bad for Frontier, all players and this game I want.

"OpenPlay" players, "SoloPlay and Private" players, PVP and PVE players need to be united in that cause, no one favors the cheater, it's garbage. Nobody wants to be with them.

I like the idea of ​​shadowban as something that is developing frontier, perhaps the cheater serve to prove that ability in the game.

Anyway, for me with the new changes between sub-factions and the possibility of having its own system I think the most honest, is to make players "solomode" can not do underminig or fortification system in the powerplay.

All this can lead to many problems in the community.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

All activities in ED are pve by definition. CG / PP / Rank progression, etc

Solo = valid mode of pve play with a null match from the matchmaking server
Group = valid mode of coop play with a limited match from the matchmaking server
Open = valid mode of play with the matchmaking server only limited by networking constraints (32 (more like 12) max players), bandwidth, connection speed, geography, timezone etc.
=
The reason for choosing Open is because you feel happy and confident that in an environment where other players are free to positively or negatively impact your gameplay experience, you will find enjoyment in that arrangement.
-
There is nothing beyond that. Open is not loftier, mightier, more real, the one true way or anything else. It is a toggle on the matchmaking server that you use to adjust your game experience according to your drives and desires for that play session.

 

[Mack Winston]

Welcome back!

Seeking additional reward for playing in Open (in whatever role) has been suggested many times - Frontier's statement that all modes are equal and valid (in their opinion) does not tend to support such a proposal.

All modes are valid but they are definitely not equal and anyone can see that.

Let's take the example of the Coppertal Ship (BD+04 community goal) a while back, which several player groups wanted to blockade.

A trader in open had to dodge the blockade to make the goal work.

A trader could choose Solo mode and effectively get a perfect "invisibility cloak" for dodging the blockade.

So no, while both modes are valid, they are provably not equal. So let's set about equalising them. One issue is that the NPC activity doesn't really reflect what's going on in the system - BD+04 was the same as pretty much any other system in solo play. With recent improvements in the AI (and probably some more improvements, such as the effectiveness of NPC interdictions), the system's AI danger in solo could be automatically tuned to reflect what's happening in open play with only really minimal lag. If traders entering a system in open play are frequently getting interdicted and attacked, then this can be reflected in solo by higher-rated NPCs doing the same - so if a bunch of groups go out their way to create *content* then this content is reflected in solo too.

I think FD really need to understand that groups can easily create content for them *for free* if they provide the tools to do so (better group social tools - there have been some worthwhile improvements already but there could be more) and make sure that solo feels the consequence of what players are generally doing, in other words expanding the background sim to influence NPC activity levels to reflect open activity levels.

 

[Robert Maynard]

All modes are valid but they are definitely not equal and anyone can see that.

Let's take the example of the Coppertal Ship (BD+04 community goal) a while back, which several player groups wanted to blockade.

A trader in open had to dodge the blockade to make the goal work.

A trader could choose Solo mode and effectively get a perfect "invisibility cloak" for dodging the blockade.

So no, while both modes are valid, they are provably not equal. So let's set about equalising them. One issue is that the NPC activity doesn't really reflect what's going on in the system - BD+04 was the same as pretty much any other system in solo play. With recent improvements in the AI (and probably some more improvements, such as the effectiveness of NPC interdictions), the system's AI danger in solo could be automatically tuned to reflect what's happening in open play with only really minimal lag. If traders entering a system in open play are frequently getting interdicted and attacked, then this can be reflected in solo by higher-rated NPCs doing the same - so if a bunch of groups go out their way to create *content* then this content is reflected in solo too.

I think FD really need to understand that groups can easily create content for them *for free* if they provide the tools to do so (better group social tools - there have been some worthwhile improvements already but there could be more) and make sure that solo feels the consequence of what players are generally doing, in other words expanding the background sim to influence NPC activity levels to reflect open activity levels.

It's Frontier's stated opinion - they are aware that some players disagree.

Blockades cannot be 100% effective in Open simply because not all players will ever be matched with others by the matchmaking system (mutual ping times); not all players play at the same time of day; not all players play on the same platform (all platforms, as well as all modes, affect the same shared galaxy state).

All players are encouraged by Frontier to "play the game how you want to" - they have provided a number of core features to enable this freedom of choice. They have also implemented CGs and Powerplay in all modes and have stated that players in all modes are supported.

What those who try to force direct interaction with all opposing players are trying to do is dictate to others how the game should be played. DBOBE is on record as stating that there is no "right" way to play the game - the freedoms afforded each and every player would seem to support this stance.

I expect that Frontier understand that groups of players *can* create content however the nature of the content that they create cannot easily be controlled. Also, why should Solo be affected by Open and not vice-versa?

 

[palazo]

It could also encourage events performed in "solomode" to perform them taking more risks in "openplay" and those in "openplay" to make soome things in the "solomode".
The events are on game ((no cheat)), not forcing everyone to do, such as:

The risky trader "Open Play", get more profit.

The alone bounty hunting the "SoloMode" level up faster fighter or get more credits.

It is to encourage the use of both "game modes" and improve the whole overall performance.
Would encourage those who do make PVP do PVE , and who do make PVE do some PVP or take risks and contact with the community, at least it would be a way to not force anyone, there are events.

The changes that I say are only of the powerplay, you should not make changes at the server level or core of the game, just your computer must synchronize the data in the power play from the "openplay" but not synchronize the changes you made in "soloplay" or "privategroup", always talking about the POWERPLAY.

Everything else continue like this and if it is possible to improve the overall events gameplay.

In this way everything would be more honest and nobody could strengthen or make undermaining to a system without being in openplay.

As this now seems tricky, and not talk about cheaters.

Many players feel like failures and fortify your system suddenly dropped inadvertently.

Everything is damaged from the inside in your sistem becaouse some people using the "soloplay" for it in powerplay.

My idea is well understood?

 

[Julissa Silver]

So no, while both modes are valid, they are provably not equal.

Incorrect. You're inferring that Elite has control over player interactivity and shunning the responsibility that players should have for their own actions and you're disregarding all the players flying separately because of instancing and differing platforms. All modes are functionally equal at a simulation level. Frontier does nothing but provide the sandbox, it's not Frontier's fault that people don't want to engage as the duck shoot to other people's gunboat blockade.

Answer why my game play should be regarded as less important as someone in open that wishes to blockade and pew pew other people? Why should I be forced to play a different game to the one I bought and currently play just because others want some targets to shoot at? What other people do in-game currently has no effect on me personally, but impacts the background sim equally to me. That's equality. Players should only be entitled to have a direct impact upon my person when I consent. If you think I shouldn't have the choice, well... Tough. Those that believe consent isn't important are exactly the sort of people I actively want to avoid and Frontier has blessedly given me the tools to do just that.

The modes and the network methodology clearly and functionally do not work work for active and direct PvP conflict - perhaps those desperately seeking to make active, direct PvP conflict a cornerstone of Elite game play will eventually notice and accept that this is probably not solely through laziness or accident.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

All modes are valid but they are definitely not equal and anyone can see that.

Let's take the example of the Coppertal Ship (BD+04 community goal) a while back, which several player groups wanted to blockade.

A trader in open had to dodge the blockade to make the goal work.

A trader could choose Solo mode and effectively get a perfect "invisibility cloak" for dodging the blockade.

So no, while both modes are valid, they are provably not equal. So let's set about equalising them. One issue is that the NPC activity doesn't really reflect what's going on in the system - BD+04 was the same as pretty much any other system in solo play. With recent improvements in the AI (and probably some more improvements, such as the effectiveness of NPC interdictions), the system's AI danger in solo could be automatically tuned to reflect what's happening in open play with only really minimal lag. If traders entering a system in open play are frequently getting interdicted and attacked, then this can be reflected in solo by higher-rated NPCs doing the same - so if a bunch of groups go out their way to create *content* then this content is reflected in solo too.

I think FD really need to understand that groups can easily create content for them *for free* if they provide the tools to do so (better group social tools - there have been some worthwhile improvements already but there could be more) and make sure that solo feels the consequence of what players are generally doing, in other words expanding the background sim to influence NPC activity levels to reflect open activity levels.

Players select Open, because they want a higher level of variable interaction. The choice is its own reward.
-
Further, the instancing system means that many players will still see no other CMDRs during a CG. I played in Open and Group during Bast 1, 2 and 3 and Apalar. Didn't get interdicted by a CMDR once. So by that selective data sample, players in solo should have no increase in interdictions during those 4 CGs?
-
Stating "Open is harder so solo needs to be balanced" invalidates the choice of Open players. If the perceived "challenge" of Open is negated by Solo being harder, why choose Open for a different experience?

 

[DarkWalker]

Players select Open, because they want a higher level of variable interaction. The choice is its own reward.

It's what is called an intrinsic reward. Which is something that should always be chased: make the experience itself satisfying even without extra (extrinsic) rewards and players will keep coming back for more, truly enjoying the experience, and they will be playing for far longer than mere rewards could ever achieve.

Looking at it from a bit further, the act of playing a game itself offers only intrinsic rewards; apart from the comparatively few eSports players and QC staff, playing a game doesn't offer any real world reward, but despite that players still play them. That larger scale dynamic needs to be captured inside the game if it is to ever succeed.

Now, extrinsic rewards can be used, and they can help improve the game, but they need to be used with great care. The extrinsic rewards should be used to guide players to content they will enjoy, to reinforce the feeling of accomplishment from something the player would already have enjoyed without the rewards anyway. To do otherwise, to add extrinsic rewards to content the players won't enjoy — and particularly if those rewards can't be obtained in some other way — is to reduce how much the average player enjoys the game, causing players to burn out and leave the game faster.

It's part of why I believe adding any kind of extra incentive to play in Open is a very bad idea. A part of the player base don't want to be subject to the kind of unwanted PvP that can be found in Open, and thus trying to attract them into Open will make the game less enjoyable for them, either because they cave up and go play in a mode they don't enjoy just for the rewards or because they remain in the mode they enjoy while seeing those that play in Open leaping ahead due to the extra rewards. For ED it's particularly bad because Frontier used the freedom to choose who we play with as a selling point.

 

[DarkWalker]

To live together in harmony:
A "PVP" (openplay player) can not get into your "solomode" to attack you when you trade, the player "PVE" should not be able to give undermainig at "PVP" on your system without anyone noticing or defend your system.

You seem to assume that the core of the game was meant as an EVE-like contest between organized groups. Based on everything that was said from the start, and on how the game itself was implemented, that is not the case; the game was engineered from the ground up so players couldn't prevent each other from accessing specific pieces of content. In other words, the players that want PvP being unable to block those that don't want to engage in PvP is intentional.

From the start the game was designed to allow players in all modes to contribute equally. In Open, Group, Solo, it doesn't matter; all your actions, be they done for your exclusive gain or to help a cause, will influence how the Galaxy evolves. There is no "right" way or mode to play, which is something David Braben, the guy who in the end calls the shots at Frontier, has stated multiple times.

 

[palazo]

It's what is called an intrinsic reward. Which is something that should always be chased: make the experience itself satisfying even without extra (extrinsic) rewards and players will keep coming back for more, truly enjoying the experience, and they will be playing for far longer than mere rewards could ever achieve.

Looking at it from a bit further, the act of playing a game itself offers only intrinsic rewards; apart from the comparatively few eSports players and QC staff, playing a game doesn't offer any real world reward, but despite that players still play them. That larger scale dynamic needs to be captured inside the game if it is to ever succeed.

Now, extrinsic rewards can be used, and they can help improve the game, but they need to be used with great care. The extrinsic rewards should be used to guide players to content they will enjoy, to reinforce the feeling of accomplishment from something the player would already have enjoyed without the rewards anyway. To do otherwise, to add extrinsic rewards to content the players won't enjoy — and particularly if those rewards can't be obtained in some other way — is to reduce how much the average player enjoys the game, causing players to burn out and leave the game faster.

It's part of why I believe adding any kind of extra incentive to play in Open is a very bad idea. A part of the player base don't want to be subject to the kind of unwanted PvP that can be found in Open, and thus trying to attract them into Open will make the game less enjoyable for them, either because they cave up and go play in a mode they don't enjoy just for the rewards or because they remain in the mode they enjoy while seeing those that play in Open leaping ahead due to the extra rewards. For ED it's particularly bad because Frontier used the freedom to choose who we play with as a selling point.

Nobody in receipt of a loop and grind with a reward than just credit.
And I do not say that this is the only thing to do in the game, but what many people to end up doing.

Build your own story and your own way in the game does not seem bad, it seems very correct and I am watching videos and listening to stories, but do not pretend that all are equal in gameplay.

We must accept that there are people who love and some people do not make their own history, in my case I'm terrible for Lore and I can not make my history with the game like this now.
Not because they do not have things to do.
There is a great list of things to do, but that what matters in the end is playing the game as you want, not just because they like to do a story we all should be like.
Because missing objectives to do different tasks.

Dont pretend that everyone is like you.

So, this does not allow people to create their own history.
I hope that the game offers more challenges, I would like to be the protector of a convoy of gold or be the huntingbounting.
Some of what they stand for the "soloplay" only think about making your way and forget that there are others who want to make another way on the open, and yet did not.

In my case I do the exploration and bounty and everything else with a specific purpose and sometimes scientist .

1.4 and the ability to create sub-factions gave me a new reason to make my way.
So I think as 1.4 updates are very good or excellent, improve gameplay.

But the "gamemodes" asociated to the "powerplay" continue affecting the gameplay as many more different types of players keep coming.

 

[Whoamus]

The changes that I say are only of the powerplay, you should not make changes at the server level or core of the game, just your computer must synchronize the data in the power play from the "openplay" but not synchronize the changes you made in "soloplay" or "privategroup", always talking about the POWERPLAY.

You say solo should not affect the simulation. It is a simulation/representation of the galaxy at some future point. If we look at real life and history, a solo person can affect change. Two names pop into my head, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald. Don't see why the game should be any different if it a simulation. One lone person or even a group with enough commitment can and should make a change playing in whatever mode they desire.

 

[palazo]

You seem to assume that the core of the game was meant as an EVE-like contest between organized groups. Based on everything that was said from the start, and on how the game itself was implemented, that is not the case; the game was engineered from the ground up so players couldn't prevent each other from accessing specific pieces of content. In other words, the players that want PvP being unable to block those that don't want to engage in PvP is intentional.

From the start the game was designed to allow players in all modes to contribute equally. In Open, Group, Solo, it doesn't matter; all your actions, be they done for your exclusive gain or to help a cause, will influence how the Galaxy evolves. There is no "right" way or mode to play, which is something David Braben, the guy who in the end calls the shots at Frontier, has stated multiple times.

lol no idea im never play Eve, and im not like it.
In what I mean by that is that it is unfair to the players and fortification in undermining "solomode" because they can not defend or know what is happening.

And some many people are using "gamemodes" at your convenience within the powerplay undermining the overall gameplay.

 

[Asp Explorer]

That is how it is designed to work.

 

[palazo]

You say solo should not affect the simulation. It is a simulation/representation of the galaxy at some future point. If we look at real life and history, a solo person can affect change. Two names pop into my head, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald. Don't see why the game should be any different if it a simulation. One lone person or even a group with enough commitment can and should make a change playing in whatever mode they desire.

Like maybe I'm failing to explain the idea.

Does not matter at least try.

Maybe someday get better.

- - - Updated - - -

That is how it is designed to work.

Then that is wrong, he makes the player lose time on something without purpose,

It's a shame.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Then that is wrong, he makes the player lose time on something without purpose,

It's a shame.

The only thing that is wrong are those people that only see Elite as a competitive PvP based entirely on pew pew. As stated since Kickstarter, Elite has the freedom to play in any mode you choose. You only play with other people if you want to.

 

[Roland2]

You say solo should not affect the simulation. It is a simulation/representation of the galaxy at some future point. If we look at real life and history, a solo person can affect change. Two names pop into my head, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald. Don't see why the game should be any different if it a simulation. One lone person or even a group with enough commitment can and should make a change playing in whatever mode they desire.

I'm not sure what your point was, but the two names that popped into your head, were PvP, not PvE. Are you saying everyone should play PvP to affect the simulation?