Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Tuub t Tute]

<snip>

Honest question: In a hypothetical locked Open with own BGS, which PP would you pledge for and what activities would you carry out? Or do you not play the PP side game? I am interested. I don't play PP at all, it doesn't interest me. My feeling about a locked Open is that a majority of players would fly Vultures as they are the best combat capability vs rebuy cost. With the limited capabilities beyond combat, this would leave a BGS full of poachers and very few deer. So PvP would be limited to "trying to find a deer to cull", or getting chased off from some imaginary turf by another gang.
-
I'm not sure if anyone in a locked Open would have the stomach to grind from scratch to rank 4 or 5 when all the "fun" is in combat?
-
Probably a simplistic view, I am open to having my horizons broadened

 

[Jockey79]

laffing 2 bank... plz lets just kill all and every game with timezones+mmo then..

ridiculous pov + counter argument really.

These are RL issues , having a Klingon cloaking device in a game can be changed

Didn't read those links I gave you I see.
Didn't watch the video or read the times (which were logged in the mega thread) when I have played open - in the busy hubs of space;

and seen no one.

That's ok, you remain clueless over how the game works and why what you want can only be found in EVE right now.
Even Star Citizen will not provide the experience you seem to want and they have a bigger budget than Frontier - yet are going for a similar system (for a reason).

It would be ok-ish, because people would not want to be locked to solo or private groups forever - because in the long run, Open play is the more interesting mode. However, not as high relatively with the current crime-system.

People do not want to be locked in open either - another thing you want to ignore it seems.
And just because open interests you, does not make it interesting for everyone.

The current open-play shows us exactly this. People are afraid of open because .....

.

Can only assume you're trolling and shall report as such.
This was covered in the last 2 megas, you've been around long enough to know that is utter and just plain insulting.

No one is "afraid" - bored of the attitudes of PvPers, bored of inane local chat, too old to have the reflexes of a combat pilot, has regular distractions from children - and so on.

 

[Khelder]

...those playing Open can engage in the offensive / defensive skirmishes they want, while those in Groups or Solo can get on and deliver widgets. The fact is, in an Open only mode, there probably wouldn't be any widgets delivered, so the actual power struggle would likely stagnate.

My feeling about a locked Open is that a majority of players would fly Vultures as they are the best combat capability vs rebuy cost. With the limited capabilities beyond combat, this would leave a BGS full of poachers and very few deer. So PvP would be limited to "trying to find a deer to cull", or getting chased off from some imaginary turf by another gang... I'm not sure if anyone in a locked Open would have the stomach to grind from scratch to rank 4 or 5 when all the "fun" is in combat?

I'm not sure why everyone playing Open is assumed to be driven towards PvP. I know I'm not overly interested in it. I'm sure there must be other traders and explorers in Open who aren't. If I were to play PP, I likely would be one of the guys grinding away flying delivery missions.

 

[Jockey79]

I'm not sure why everyone playing Open is assumed to be driven towards PvP. ...

Because none-PvP players play in Mobius (if they know about it) or other private groups.
By default, Open mode is the main PvP mode. Which is why we've asked for an Open PvE mode for those who do not know about private groups or those who do not want to put pressure on a single member to run a private group.

 

[Khelder]

The main reason that proposals for change keep coming up, in my opinion, is that Frontier have stuck to their design intent from the outset, through development, to release - and beyond. Some players don't like it and will continue to petition for change. Other players are quite happy with the current arrangement and push back against proposals for change.

You have been around here longer than I, so perhaps you have seen more. But this has not generally been my experience.

I have yet to see a new thread pop up where someone has said, "You know what the problem with mode switching is? It's that FD have stuck to their design from the start!" In fact, I would guess that the majority of players who bring it up have no idea about the history at all. What I usually see is players who just come to the conclusion that something is slightly off with the whole mode switching thing. It would be something like, "So I've just started checking out PP. But then I realised it would be so much safer doing what I'm doing in Solo. That doesn't seem right." I'm pretty sure it is honest confusion most of the times. Then those comments get jumped on by whatever vested-interest side reaches it first. Then the thread eventually ends up here.

The reason that the conversation keeps going here may be that FD have stuck to their design with nothing really addressing the perceived problem. But that is not the reason why the topic keeps coming up.

- - - Updated - - -

Because none-PvP players play in Mobius (if they know about it) or other private groups.
By default, Open mode is the main PvP mode.

Uh, no, I don't.

I was under the impression that Open mode was the mode where you could have unrestricted contact with other players in that mode and that PvP was a possibility. Wasn't that the original design?

 

[Jockey79]

Wasn't that the original design?

"rare and meaningful" - I linked information and videos where FD say seeing other commanders full stop was going to be rare and PvP meaningful.
But some folks just treat open as a duck hunt - there are other active threads on this forum right now talking about it and how "real pirates" are rare, as too many folks just want easy kills and call themselves "pirates" do mask their intent.

That is not rare and it is not meaningful.

Open = Full PvP
Groups = what ever rules set by the creator
Solo = Single player PvE

Hence the request for an Open PvE mode.

 

[Khelder]

"rare and meaningful"... some folks just treat open as a duck hunt...

My current topic was "How PP would work in Open with own BGS". Why are we talking about pirates again?

 

[Jockey79]

My current topic was "How PP would work in Open with own BGS". Why are we talking about pirates again?

For one, you brought up;

Wasn't that the original design?

Which, as I pointed out - player to player contact (regardless of activity) was supposed to be "rare".
And when you get contact, it should be "meaningful" - and of course, PP does add meaning to contact.

However, as "people" (not actual pirates) use it as an excuse just to pew pew (PP adds nothing for PvP, no rewards or incentive), and flood areas with their style of play, in accordance with the "original design" this contact is neither "rare" nor "meaningful".

Also, the "original design" is based on one shared BGS - as I have pointed out, several times. So have others.
And to really hit that point home - X-Box One is going to share the same BGS with every one else - what better excuse to have 2 BGS than the game being on different platforms and Microsoft being a nightmare to work with, yet they go with the "original design" of ONE(1) for all and all for ONE (1).

I'm all for ways to improve the game, but why a handful of you think they only way to improve the game is by destroying the original design and ruin it for everyone else is beyond me.

 

[JosiahD]

"rare and meaningful" - I linked information and videos where FD say seeing other commanders full stop was going to be rare and PvP meaningful.
But some folks just treat open as a duck hunt - there are other active threads on this forum right now talking about it and how "real pirates" are rare, as too many folks just want easy kills and call themselves "pirates" do mask their intent.

That is not rare and it is not meaningful.

Open = Full PvP
Groups = what ever rules set by the creator
Solo = Single player PvE

Hence the request for an Open PvE mode.

While open allows unrestricted (full) PvP, open is NOT PvP mode. By the very nature of the scale of the galaxy simulated, it is PRINCIPALLY PvE - the bulk of what ANYONE does will be PvE at some point. While PvP is possible within that construct (and is intended to be rare and meaningful), open is still PvE-focused. Given the scale of the play area, in how many systems is PvP regularly engaged in at any given time (excluding random ad hoc and one off encounters)? How many systems are subjected to player blockade attempts in an effort to draw out PvP? Ten? A dozen? Three dozen? Even if it were that many, it would still be pitifully few, and far far fewer than would be required to even go close to calling open mode a PvP-focused mode - the inhabited 'bubble' is just too big, let alone the rest of the galaxy modelled. There will NEVER be a sufficiently-sized PvP-focused population for it to ever warrant a separate PvE mode, in my opinion. What we actually need are mechanisms in game that drive PvP into areas where it would reasonably be expected, such as anarchic space, combat zones, resource extraction sites (with interdictions and assaults on clean CMDRs in policed space warranting greater consequences).
.
Conclusion? It's actually the PvPers who have to adapt to the fact that open is actually PvE-focused, whether they like it or not, and that PvP isn't handed to them on a platter (unless they themselves bait CMDRs to a particular system of course). Most get it I think, but some still don't it appears. A separate open-PvE wouldn't be required as we already have the PvE-focused BGS. And I believe separating out players into a dedicated PvP-focused version of the BGS would be horribly empty for the most part, with all the players clustered into a handful of systems just so they could reliably find likeminded players - and players there would still have to PvE to progress anyway. In any event, CQC is the dedicated PvP mode......

 

[Bomba Luigi]

It shouldn't be hard for anybody that wants PvP to find other who want PvP, make a meeting point where everybody gathers in the same System and have some big PvP-fest.

Problems come when PvPers want non PvPers to join in. As you can imagine, people who don't want PvP are hard to find for PvP - and will always be. Can't change that.

 

[Jockey79]

While open allows unrestricted (full) PvP, open is NOT PvP mode.

On that we have to to disagree.
Right now, the best place for PvP (of any type) is Open Mode.

In any event, CQC is the dedicated PvP mode......

That is not out yet, so not really an option.
Plus, you'll find people who wanted fair fights were all ready having them. Those who don't want fair fights are the ones who complain they struggle for soft targets.

We will see, I don't think it will make that much difference to be honest.
But it's out on Tuesday, give it a month and see what impact it has on the game and on this thread.

 

[Phosphora]

People are afraid of open because of rampant ganking and murdering with no penalty.

I am not afraid of open. I avoid open because I would be bored by it.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Khelder]

For one, you brought up;

When (recently) did I bring up pirates?!

 

[Robert Maynard]

You have been around here longer than I, so perhaps you have seen more. But this has not generally been my experience.

I have yet to see a new thread pop up where someone has said, "You know what the problem with mode switching is? It's that FD have stuck to their design from the start!" In fact, I would guess that the majority of players who bring it up have no idea about the history at all. What I usually see is players who just come to the conclusion that something is slightly off with the whole mode switching thing. It would be something like, "So I've just started checking out PP. But then I realised it would be so much safer doing what I'm doing in Solo. That doesn't seem right." I'm pretty sure it is honest confusion most of the times. Then those comments get jumped on by whatever vested-interest side reaches it first. Then the thread eventually ends up here.

The reason that the conversation keeps going here may be that FD have stuck to their design with nothing really addressing the perceived problem. But that is not the reason why the topic keeps coming up.

You missed my point - Frontier have designed, developed and launched the game with the core features that cause some players problems. In that sense, they have changed nothing - in the face of frequent requests / incredulity / demands for change.

The change proposals themselves come from players who want the game to be changed to suit their preferred play-style. Frontier have chosen not to change these core features, therefore more threads are created and, usually, merged.

 

[Khelder]

You missed my point - Frontier have designed, developed and launched the game with the core features that cause some players problems. In that sense, they have changed nothing - in the face of frequent requests / incredulity / demands for change.

The change proposals themselves come from players who want the game to be changed to suit their preferred play-style. Frontier have chosen not to change these core features, therefore more threads are created and, usually, merged.

"incredulity" - good word

I think I understand now. Your point is focusing on why the issues keep coming up (repetitively). The reason being that FD has not changed anything... so the issues are still there to discuss... yes? I am focusing on the reason why they would come up in the first place. I'm trying to discuss the issue.

You've mentioned one: "change proposals themselves come from players who want the game to be changed to suit their preferred play-style". Correct me if I am wrong, but this is basically the we-need-more-targets-to-shoot-in-open crowd. Fair enough. I am actually more interested in the hey-something-seems-to-be-fundamentally-wrong-with-this crowd.

Despite acknowledging that the issue(s) probably shouldn't be "fixed", I still attempt to discuss some of the aspects on a theoretical level. But the usual response I get has nothing to do with what I am talking about. It's generally something like "should have read the box" or one of many other canned responses.

 

[Seonid]

I am focusing on the reason why they would come up in the first place. I'm trying to discuss the issue.

Some players want the game to be something it's not, which is the source of the discussion and pretty much every game has exactly the same style of discussions. Often, it's newer players who are unaware of the two and a half years of history of this, so it all starts again. The core reason is still the same: people want to change a game to match what they think it should be.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You've mentioned one: "change proposals themselves come from players who want the game to be changed to suit their preferred play-style". Correct me if I am wrong, but this is basically the we-need-more-targets-to-shoot-in-open crowd. Fair enough. I am actually more interested in the hey-something-seems-to-be-fundamentally-wrong-with-this crowd.

Whether (or not) there are issues arising from the choice by Frontier to design the game around the three core game features in contention is a matter of opinion. As is the "something seems to be fundamentally wrong" argument - it very much depends on one's point of view.

 

[ianw]

"incredulity" - good word

I think I understand now. Your point is focusing on why the issues keep coming up (repetitively). The reason being that FD has not changed anything... so the issues are still there to discuss... yes? I am focusing on the reason why they would come up in the first place. I'm trying to discuss the issue.

You've mentioned one: "change proposals themselves come from players who want the game to be changed to suit their preferred play-style". Correct me if I am wrong, but this is basically the we-need-more-targets-to-shoot-in-open crowd. Fair enough. I am actually more interested in the hey-something-seems-to-be-fundamentally-wrong-with-this crowd.

Despite acknowledging that the issue(s) probably shouldn't be "fixed", I still attempt to discuss some of the aspects on a theoretical level. But the usual response I get has nothing to do with what I am talking about. It's generally something like "should have read the box" or one of many other canned responses.

Can you give me an example of the bit(s) you'd like to theoretically discuss?

 

[DarkWalker]

I'm not sure why everyone playing Open is assumed to be driven towards PvP.

The issue is not that everyone in Open is doing PvP. The issue is that a single person that insists in PvP can force others in Open to also engage in PvP, regardless of whether they want to play PvP or not.

Hence, Open is a PvP mode. Only good for those that either want PvP or don't mind it happening.

---

Which, as I pointed out - player to player contact (regardless of activity) was supposed to be "rare".
And when you get contact, it should be "meaningful" - and of course, PP does add meaning to contact.

Another part of it was that most player to player contact was supposed to end in co-op play, not PvP. The idea is that people should be thrilled when they find someone else in the game. Every time that some player jumps out of fear just from meeting another player, before that other player even has the chance to show his intent, the game has failed.

---

While open allows unrestricted (full) PvP, open is NOT PvP mode.

Sincerely, this is naive. There is a dedicated PvP population that will make sure that any game mode where PvP is non-optional ends up as an outright PvP mode, regardless of the intent of the developers or publisher. I've seen this happen more than once.

Hence why I, and others, want an Open PvE mode. Prohibiting non-consensual PvP at a rules level is the only way to effectively have a PvE mode.

 

[Jockey79]

When (recently) did I bring up pirates?!

I used them as the example as you mentioned;

Wasn't that the original design?

and the design was for players meeting to be "rare" and "meaningful" - which some say it is not.

The Back Ground Simulation, Community Goals and Power Play were all designed around mode switching and other platforms connecting to the one BGS - keeping in mind the mantra "rare" and "meaningful". The whole system is built on players pushing around counters from A to B and back again.

PvP rewards for CG : None
PvP Rewards for PP : None
PvP Bounty hunting : Bounties capped due to player abuse
PvP Piracy : Sucks due to too many people killing under the guise of "piracy" and those who High Wake out.

And as for the mission system picking players as eligible targets for mission completion - apart from that being completely random as to what missions come up, if the game was under the "original design" - if seeing another player is rare, the mission system picking players is a mute point - as you'd rarely see them, for them to count towards your missions anyway.

So, as you brought up;

Wasn't that the original design?

That was designed around 1 BGS, that we all connect to, with modes in place for all players to "play your own way".

So would you like to make a suggestion that does not counter the "original design" by splitting the BGS for a dozen people who would moan about lack of targets anyway in their new open only game