Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[W0OCQCK]

Could you imagine CQC CTF if some of the players were allowed to play in a Solo version of CQC?!

Interesting concept.

(My apologies didn't mean to but in here)

I would bet some serious scratch, that if the folks at FD had a single server similar to EVE, they still wouldn't change a thing about how this game is set up. It's been a real success by almost anyone's standards. Well that is with the exception of those liking to shoot fish in a barrel, and have lots of fish to pick and choose from.

Please don't get defensive, I too have high standards in my PVP endeavors. So high that I will never participate in any gaming format that encourages or promotes a ganking style of PVP. To me it's just simply poor sportsmanship and not by any means a valid form of PVP, I scoff at people that consider this PVP. Funny I mostly play hard core PVP games when I have time. Heck at 62 you would be surprised how well I do.

PS I'm from the US, and I can barely bring my self to watch American Football. Not a big Rugby fan, Love World Cup Soccer though.

 

[Khelder]

I would bet some serious scratch, that if the folks at FD had a single server similar to EVE, they still wouldn't change a thing about how this game is set up. It's been a real success by almost anyone's standards. Well that is with the exception of those liking to shoot fish in a barrel, and have lots of fish to pick and choose from.

I don't know. They don't seem to comment about it all that much. I can't see them making too many changes soon. I think they have bigger things on their plates with things like Horizons. Which is both good and bad I guess.

PS I'm from the US, and I can barely bring my self to watch American Football. Not a big Rugby fan, Love World Cup Soccer though.

Look, I'm not going to suggest that one mode of football is better than another. I do like the Rugby League mode. You US mob, of course, have just gone off and decided to play in your own private Group.

The World Cup Soccer Mode can be quite interesting and there are certainly a lot of vocal supporters for it in the forums (sometimes they can get a bit carried away). There's a lot of skill there. I'm a bit put off by it though. They really need to look at some of the mechanics. It seems to be all too easy (and frequent) to self-destruct and claim that another player has rammed you thus attracting the attention of the authorities who then promptly fire off their yellow cards.

The big problem for everyone, though, is switching. That's just not on. If you don't like the full PvP contact of the Rugby Mode or the NFL Mode, that's fine. Stick to the Soccer Mode. But once you start in that Mode, you should stay in it.

 

[Lestenio]

There would be plenty of people who would do that. 3 Elite Dangerous characters is not unrealistic at all. The time I've spent on my CMDR is nothing compared to what I played in WoW. In World of Warcraft, I would re-roll all the time. And you wouldn't have to play in all 3 modes to make anyone happy. The restriction would exist to try and keep PvPers together instead of PvPers going into solo mode when they feel like trading.

It would essentially be like WoW with PvE and PvP realms and an additional solo mode.

What you are saying is you want to change the game to meet the PvPs needs and damn anyone else.
Restricting my movements is forcing me to chose, that's not the game I bought and would ruin the game for me and many others. I'd have to chose solo. If my faction said lets meet in a group, I wouldn't be starting with a sidewinder again. Good buy social interaction. Then again there wouldn't be any groups because when you start playing the game you don't know anyone so have no exposure to groups. You only join them as you meet like minded people. Your change would kill group play for everyone.

Having a no risk open save would be even worse. I'd call it my griefing save. I'd do my thing in solo, then when I get bored, switch to open and my sidewinder and annoy the hell out of open players with absolutely no risk at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Could you imagine CQC CTF if some of the players were allowed to play in a Solo version of CQC?!

Not a very strong analogy, in my opinion. CQC is PvP *only*. No NPCs inhabit the CQC instances. CQC was designed to be competitive unlike, in my opinion, Elite: Dangerous.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Not a very strong analogy, in my opinion. CQC is PvP *only*. No NPCs inhabit the CQC instances. CQC was designed to be competitive unlike, in my opinion, Elite: Dangerous.

Elite is a "second life sim", you basically play a game in a virtual world like you would live your life (in there). It is partly competetive. I mean, you would probably like to progress faster than your opponents (whoever they may be), don't you?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Elite is a "second life sim", you basically play a game in a virtual world like you would live your life (in there). It is partly competetive. I mean, you would probably like to progress faster than your opponents (whoever they may be), don't you?

It's only competitive in terms of goals one sets oneself. There is no leaderboard. There is no "win" condition.

 

[Khelder]

Not a very strong analogy, in my opinion. CQC is PvP *only*. No NPCs inhabit the CQC instances. CQC was designed to be competitive unlike, in my opinion, Elite: Dangerous.

Wasn't the point of PP to make ED somewhat competitive?? You pledge to a faction and complete tasks so that your 'team' advances?

Like I said, I don't play PP. I'm certain that there are plenty of players who just pledged so that they can get extra credits or shiny shields. However, I'm also certain that there is a contingent of players who have adopted PP like some murderous, political, sport. For those players... I can see that their opposition working in Solo could be viewed as a problem.

The same line of reasoning could also be extended to community events... or, more importantly, those who try to resist these efforts.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Wasn't the point of PP to make ED somewhat competitive?? You pledge to a faction and complete tasks so that your 'team' advances?

Like I said, I don't play PP. I'm certain that there are plenty of players who just pledged so that they can get extra credits or shiny shields. However, I'm also certain that there is a contingent of players who have adopted PP like some murderous, political, sport. For those players... I can see that their opposition working in Solo could be viewed as a problem.

The same line of reasoning could also be extended to community events... or, more importantly, those who try to resist these efforts.

Competitive in the sense that each "team" works to expand their sphere of influence and undermine others - all with absolutely no *requirement* for PvP, as evidenced by the fact that Powerplay is implemented to be affected from all game modes.

 

[Khelder]

Competitive in the sense that each "team" works to expand their sphere of influence and undermine others - all with absolutely no *requirement* for PvP, as evidenced by the fact that Powerplay is implemented to be affected from all game modes.

I don't know if saying that something is a certain way (there is no requirement for PvP and that PP affected from all game modes) necessarily means that that implementation is completely fair.

But, fair enough. Who am I to say, really? I don't even play it. I'm just trying to understand the issues along the lines of what this thread is supposed to be about.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If it truly needs a boost in rewards to have enough players to be enjoyable, as some of those defending Open keep saying, then yeah, without any doubt

"More players to be enjoyable"

Highly subjective wouldn't you say?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't know if saying that something is a certain way (there is no requirement for PvP and that PP affected from all game modes) necessarily means that that implementation is completely fair.

But, fair enough. Who am I to say, really? I don't even play it. I'm just trying to understand the issues along the lines of what this thread is supposed to be about.

Frontier are on record as stating (and re-iterating) that all three game modes are valid and equal. They have implemented Powerplay and Community Goals in a manner consistent with this assertion.

 

[Khelder]

Frontier are on record as stating (and re-iterating) that all three game modes are valid and equal. They have implemented Powerplay and Community Goals in a manner consistent with this assertion.

I'm sorry. One of these days I'll learn not to get involved in these things. Or at least know when to just leave it. But...

I don't know if Frontier saying that something is a certain way (that all three game modes are valid and equal and that they implemented Powerplay and Community Goals in a manner consistent with this assertion) necessarily means that that implementation is completely fair.

Bear in mind that what is fair to one may not be fair to another. I can only suggest that since these threads exist, that not everyone views it as fair.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I can't find the post now and on a phone with awful internet however one poster mentioned that FD need to find a compromise. I would argue it is already a compromise.

Without the multiplayer competitive element and the PU the game could be a friendly coop experience like L4D or payday 2. There would be less need to worry about balance, so the content would be easier to create and there could be a whole modding scene and core stuff from the other games like accelerated time could be a thing

But none of this is doable with a PU and even if it was it would not work as the multiplayer aspect would break.

I do not mind so much and can accept the reasons as a necessary evil but imo it is the PvE players who have had to compromised so much just so the MP can work the way FD want it to.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

I'm sorry. One of these days I'll learn not to get involved in these things. Or at least know when to just leave it. But...

I don't know if Frontier saying that something is a certain way (that all three game modes are valid and equal and that they implemented Powerplay and Community Goals in a manner consistent with this assertion) necessarily means that that implementation is completely fair.

Bear in mind that what is fair to one may not be fair to another. I can only suggest that since these threads exist, that not everyone views it as fair.

Everybody gets the same for doing the same, its as fair as it can get.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm sorry. One of these days I'll learn not to get involved in these things. Or at least know when to just leave it. But...

I don't know if Frontier saying that something is a certain way (that all three game modes are valid and equal and that they implemented Powerplay and Community Goals in a manner consistent with this assertion) necessarily means that that implementation is completely fair.

Bear in mind that what is fair to one may not be fair to another. I can only suggest that since these threads exist, that not everyone views it as fair.

For something to be able to be judged "fair" (or not), first there needs to be an undisputed definition of "fair" in the context of E: D and all of the activities therein....

 

[Seonid]

I can only suggest that since these threads exist, that not everyone views it as fair.

That is always going to be the case with everything, ever, in the existence of our species. You can however, count the number of individual posters in this thread and compare that to the number of people [potentially] playing the game.

 

[Khelder]

So.... "Working as intended". Right, then.

 

[-Pv-]

"If you want to PvP, you should ALWAYS play in open mode in my opinion. If you don't want to PvP, you should probably never enter open play."

Why? Since when do you get to dictate how other people play a game that they bought?

I will play whatever mode I want, for whatever reason I want, whenever. Telling me I will never PvP or PvE is like dictating you can only be a car mechanic for the rest of your life
because you like to tinker with your car once in a while. I changed a flat once, now I have to sell tires.

-Pv-

 

[Mouse]

"If you want to PvP, you should ALWAYS play in open mode in my opinion. If you don't want to PvP, you should probably never enter open play."



I will play whatever mode I want, for whatever reason I want, whenever. Telling me I will never PvP or PvE is like dictating you can only be a car mechanic for the rest of your life
because you like to tinker with your car once in a while. I changed a flat once, now I have to sell tires.

-Pv-

Faded is talking to the person who thinks we should all play in open

 

[Faded Glory]

I think you misunderstand me. I meant "higher standard" as in, not sinking to the level of exploiting mechanics, etc. I see no reason why someone should have to "prove themselves" in Open if all they want to do is derive simple enjoyment playing the environment in Solo (or Group).

I get what you mean about Solo being "just different" and in a lot of cases it is. Particularly for people like me (and, it sounds, you) who are happy doing their own thing, aren't in a race to the top, don't engage in PP, etc - I don't see why my mode choice makes any different or that anyone should complain about the choice I make. In my mind, complaining about people playing in Solo because they aren't there in Open as cannon-fodder isn't a worthy argument.

Networking and mechanics aside though, surely you would concede that there is at least a perceived difference when it comes to situations where players are working towards (or against) a common game goal. PP and CGs being examples of these situations. It doesn't mean that either group has a right to exclude the other. But the fact that they both contribute to a common goal with a different set of rules could be viewed as slightly less than fair.

With your analogy, nobody should really care how people get up the hill. It's done for enjoyment. Doesn't affect you. Get over it. But if that was a competition where you started at the bottom and had to make your way to the top and back down again... feelings might change somewhat. Could you imagine CQC CTF if some of the players were allowed to play in a Solo version of CQC?!

Don't worry, I think we're on the same page really.

There may well be a perceived difference regarding PP's and CG's (neither of which am I that interested in). My perception however, is that while the perception that players in Solo have an advantage looks on the surface to have some merit, when one looks at the mechanics of the game, instancing for example, meaning other players in Open could very well be invisible to you too, and simply the fact that not only will there be players hidden from you working against your design, there will also be players working with you, hidden from the enemies that you are facing in Open. It balances I imagine, and FD will have numbers to determine if things get out of balance. So no, I think the whole 'fairness and balance' arguments are way out of proportion. Players in Open can (potentially, instancing allowing) counter other players in Open and have the fun that they are looking for, and players in Solo counter other players in Solo, happily fortifying or subverting, or whatever it is.

My analogy is not an analogy of a competition, and I just don't view ED to be that kind of direct competition. As Robert Maynard says in one of his posts, you set goals for yourself to achieve.

I believe a (very few) people have suggested that they'd like a Solo version of CQC. Personally, although I can understand where they are coming from, as they may want the 'fun' that CQC offers, but simply have no interest in PvP, I think CQC is set up to be directly competitive, CMDR vs CMDR, at least, that is how I understand it, so it's not likely for a Solo mode to emerge.