Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

Do you want a Open PvE

  • Yes, I want a Open PvE

    Votes: 54 51.4%
  • No, I don't want a Open PvE

    Votes: 49 46.7%
  • I want only Open PvE and PvP only in groups

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Total voters
    105
  • Poll closed .
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
My stance follows yours. In open most any behavior, between spaceships, is acceptable. There is just as much content in open as there is in solo or group. The players that go psycho, go psycho because they can, and that's ok. Content has nothing to do with it. It is the type of content we may be talking about. These players want to fight other players. You hear them say that all of the time.

Open has to accept that it's population is going to be a function of how many players enjoy that environment. It was predicted long ago, that open would rapidly turn into a PvP zone, devoid of the less combative players. This is coming to pass and I believe it was foreseen by FD, and the Backers. This is evidenced by the mode structure. Open can support only the population willing to play in that environment.

Just as no player group can truly 'blockade' a system, no set of players can police the galaxy. The players can intend to stop the psycho behavior, but doing so is just not feasible. The only way a player can avoid behavior they don't wish to encounter, is to play in another mode. This was anticipated. If you don't like the environment you're in, try another one, if you can't find one you like, make your own.

Players can play as they like. They just have accept the consequences. Those consequences are what we see now. Players migrating to environments they do enjoy. The system is working. Let it play out.
 
This is what really confuses me about part of the PvP community now, it has been clear for a long time that online gaming is moving in such a way where each player can choose who they interact with.

Elite Dangerous, Shroud of the Avatar use the same system, Star Citizens is not that different really.
Heck, even Star Trek Online (over 5 years old now) uses an instance system for general missions where you can jump in to open groups on a per mission basis and jump back out into a solo instance for missions - at will and has dedicated PvP areas within the main game (Kerrat for example). It is only the end game raid content they force you to interact with other people.
You can get to max level in World of Warcraft without ever playing alongside anyone else.

These annoying people are their own worst enemy, and yet complain as games evolve to deal with their actions.

my enhancement of that last sentence.


been a while since i felt strongly compelled to utter the F word aloud, however #### YES.

so far this mode system is the best i've seen to deal with them without going to the pure PVE game like LOTRO.

but then i have never played WOW.
STO handled it fairly well, and SW:TOR did ok also. but the game play in each is rather weak, to put it politely.

for pure PVP, even though my survival rate is <%12 i have about 35 tanks, 28 of them premium [bought with real cash] on the Australian/asian server and a dozen or so regular tanks on each of the Russian, EU, north am servers.
i don't fight well, but i do enjoy driving a tank or self propelled gun around and blowing things up.
 

Nonya

Banned
My stance follows yours. In open most any behavior, between spaceships, is acceptable. There is just as much content in open as there is in solo or group. The players that go psycho, go psycho because they can, and that's ok. Content has nothing to do with it. It is the type of content we may be talking about. These players want to fight other players. You hear them say that all of the time.

Open has to accept that it's population is going to be a function of how many players enjoy that environment. It was predicted long ago, that open would rapidly turn into a PvP zone, devoid of the less combative players. This is coming to pass and I believe it was foreseen by FD, and the Backers. This is evidenced by the mode structure. Open can support only the population willing to play in that environment.

Just as no player group can truly 'blockade' a system, no set of players can police the galaxy. The players can intend to stop the psycho behavior, but doing so is just not feasible. The only way a player can avoid behavior they don't wish to encounter, is to play in another mode. This was anticipated. If you don't like the environment you're in, try another one, if you can't find one you like, make your own.

Players can play as they like. They just have accept the consequences. Those consequences are what we see now. Players migrating to environments they do enjoy. The system is working. Let it play out.

This is why splitting out a separate background sim for open and another separate one for solo/private groups would work much better - then those "psycho" players would have absolutely zero influence on a solo/private group game and vice-versa.

I'm still not sure why people are so against this, especially FDEV.
 
Players can play as they like. They just have accept the consequences. Those consequences are what we see now. Players migrating to environments they do enjoy. The system is working. Let it play out.

Amen Brother.

[video=youtube_share;GxZuq57_bYM]https://youtu.be/GxZuq57_bYM[/video]
 
Anacondas & Pythons are most assuredly not made of paper. I chose a bit less cargo to be properly fitted (keeping pirates in mind)
Pythons and condas are not trade ships, they are multiroles. By trader ships i specifically meant type x line ships and haulers.

So gankers and murderers are a teaching experience? LOL.
I Did not say that, dont put words in my mouth. All i said was fighting npcs is no preparation for fighting humans.

So it is our fault that there's no one in open and we cause grievers? Double LOL.
Again youre misrepresenting or interpreting what i say. I meant that there are little to no ways to find pvp in this game, even among willing participates, aka duelists or non willing participants, players with bounty or traders willingly playing in open.

This has been discussed and, for the most part, people do think the cargo of NPCs should be improved.
Glad to see we can finally agree on something.

So players are responsible for making pirates kill them? What a knee-slapper.
The players I kill certainly are responsible for their own death. I don't kill anyone who complies.

Besides that, if non lethal piracy had actually progression to new ships, I may clear save and try a non lethal piracy + ironman challenge.

This has also been discussed and agreed on by people in the thread. People agree there should be more penalty for pointless murder.
This does seem to be the low hanging fruit of the list, i dont think anyone will disagree about higher penalties for murder.

Well, except for 2 of your points (duly noted), I can only think that the modes are working as planned.
Well have to agree to disagree here.



- Trade ships have always been weakers, usually unarmed.
There's weak and than there's type 7 armor weak.

- I call false on NPC's posing no challenge. Yes to some people they are not, but to most of us they are. They are trying to balance so that new players are not overwhelmed by them and seasoned players like yourself have a challenge but it is hard to do. So they err on the side of caution and keep them so newer players won't be overwhelmed
It's good to keep in mind the avg skill of the player base but imo most of the evasion techniques are knowledged based rather than skill based. That applies to both pve and pvp btw. Give me 1 day and i could teach a brand new player to evade npcs like a pro.

- IF you all would police the griefers then things may improve. It isn't FD's problem, People wanted an open PVP mode and they got it. If poeple want others to stay in it they need to fix the problem they created. I do agree they need to do more against hackers, but that is a different issue and not from personal experience just reading other's frustrations.
You don't find anything wrong with forcing a portion of the player base to play security for the game just so the game can be balanced? I dislike pvp bounty hunting, it seems pretty backwards to have to do it just so piracy can be sustainable.

- I agree PVE piracy needs to be upgraded to make juicy targets and possibly harder "convoys" for pirates to crack
They actually do have convoy guarded with pythons and vultures. The funny part is I've only seen them carrying basic meds and clothes.

- Have not used limpets so if they are broken it would be nice for them to be fixed.
If you feel like it, try out the limpets against an npc. They aren't too too bad, when you're in a cobra. However once you upgrade to using an asp. clipper, python or fdl, they're not worth using anymore. There are many also was to completely negate limpets, like actually make them not work at all. They've been useless since they were added.

- I love the idea that if someone kills another player that is clean that the cost to replace the killed players ship be added to the killers insurance, and maybe the cost of cargo, data, etc. Something like this I'd loved to see implimented.
I don't like this idea, i'd prefer something more organic rather than a hand in the sky that saps your bank account when you kill.

- What are your ideas for Bounty Hunters? And could there be an implementation of ways to pay others for services such as escorting and such?
For bounty hunters, I'd add a galaxy wide bounty board. Every player in the game with a bounty over a certain amount (let's say 100k) get's added to the board. Any player that wants to can select the pirates name and take the mission to hunt them down. How many players that are allowed to track any one player depends on their total bounty level. Ex. At 100k it's only 1 player, 500k it's 2, 2mill it's 3, 4 mill it caps out at 4 players. Once you're tracking a player you get "soft" updates of their location. Whenever they commit a crime you get the update, the time it takes to update depends on the systems security level. There would also have to be a way to show if the target is online or offline/not in open mode. Maybe an active/inactive notification. Not to mention increased/ 100% chance of getting paired up in the same instance. idk how fesible my idea is.
 
Last edited:
This is why splitting out a separate background sim for open and another separate one for solo/private groups would work much better - then those "psycho" players would have absolutely zero influence on a solo/private group game and vice-versa.

I'm still not sure why people are so against this, especially FDEV.


NO!

no because trying to appease the psycho killers is not possible and even if you could , they are not worth the effort.
let them rage quit here and go play the game/games that encourage that kind of murder without consequences.

i have said it before, and i'll say it again:
history tells us how well appeasement of a psycho works.


apeaser.jpg
 
This is why splitting out a separate background sim for open and another separate one for solo/private groups would work much better - then those "psycho" players would have absolutely zero influence on a solo/private group game and vice-versa.

I'm still not sure why people are so against this, especially FDEV.

From a philosophical point of view it's because the developers promised a seamless transition through the modes. I jump between the modes as my ability, and interests change. If I'm working to support a faction or a power my efforts would only show up in the mode I was playing in for that session. Split the BGS and effectively you penalize players for exploring what all of the modes have to offer.

The BGS and PP, like we have in Elite are not for small fries. One player could never have an effect on any system that large. So, a BGS for the solo players would be useless. There are too many reasons people play in solo to just brush them off as negligible. I suggest that, how things are now, open's population couldn't really support the BGS on it's own. That there is one galaxy for all is as much a practical decision, as it is a philosophical one. But, I support it on the philosophical level. One galaxy, play as you like.
 
For bounty hunters, I'd add a galaxy wide bounty board. Every player in the game with a bounty over a certain amount (let's say 100k) get's added to the board. Any player that wants to can select the pirates name and take the mission to hunt them down. How many players that are allowed to track any one player depends on their total bounty level. Ex. At 100k it's only 1 player, 500k it's 2, 2mill it's 3, 4 mill it caps out at 4 players. Once you're tracking a player you get "soft" updates of their location. Whenever they commit a crime you get the update, the time it takes to update depends on the systems security level. There would also have to be a way to show if the target is online or offline/not in open mode. Maybe an active/inactive notification. Not to mention increased/ 100% chance of getting paired up in the same instance. idk how fesible my idea is.

That is one of the best ideas I've ever read in this forum (not sarcasm).

We need an idea that good for deterring griefing and the games officially fixed (definitely sarcasm).
 
Have you seen the thread over there - the equivalent of this one?

I'd wait till till you see the player interaction slider in action before you bank on your PVP fix.

Which is why I'm happily sticking with WoT for my PvP, plus a bit of EvE as well. Here, I am content out in the black but I will defend the choice of equal modes as long as I am playing.
 
[URL="https://forums.frontier.co.uk/member.php?u=52515" said:
Jordan Cobalt[/URL]]For bounty hunters, I'd add a galaxy wide bounty board. Every player in the game with a bounty over a certain amount (let's say 100k) get's added to the board. Any player that wants to can select the pirates name and take the mission to hunt them down. How many players that are allowed to track any one player depends on their total bounty level. Ex. At 100k it's only 1 player, 500k it's 2, 2mill it's 3, 4 mill it caps out at 4 players. Once you're tracking a player you get "soft" updates of their location. Whenever they commit a crime you get the update, the time it takes to update depends on the systems security level. There would also have to be a way to show if the target is online or offline/not in open mode. Maybe an active/inactive notification. Not to mention increased/ 100% chance of getting paired up in the same instance. idk how fesible my idea is..
Freakin Genius. Fdev needs to hire you.
 
i get the feeling that they understand the situation fully and make these posts in hope of undermining the currently working open/group/solo configuration.
in fact the complaints of griefers about the lack of targets makes it look like the mode system is working.

I had thought about this also. Most of them can't be as dense as they claim or they would need someone to feed them with a spoon.
 
Open has to accept that it's population is going to be a function of how many players enjoy that environment. It was predicted long ago, that open would rapidly turn into a PvP zone, devoid of the less combative players. This is coming to pass and I believe it was foreseen by FD, and the Backers. This is evidenced by the mode structure. Open can support only the population willing to play in that environment.

Just as no player group can truly 'blockade' a system, no set of players can police the galaxy. The players can intend to stop the psycho behavior, but doing so is just not feasible. The only way a player can avoid behavior they don't wish to encounter, is to play in another mode. This was anticipated. If you don't like the environment you're in, try another one, if you can't find one you like, make your own.

Players can play as they like. They just have accept the consequences. Those consequences are what we see now. Players migrating to environments they do enjoy. The system is working. Let it play out.


damn, out of rep for you. This self-evident point is what so many apologists for open just can't admit.
 
Last edited:
Again youre misrepresenting or interpreting what i say.


Between you "deliberately misunderstanding" (quoting you) and your selective word dropping, it's kinda hard to tell.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd rather walk to Solitude in Skyrim ;)

Been there, done that; graduated from the Horker School of Combat with mega-increased armour, blocking & spellcasting stats. Plus a few nice and warm Frost Troll rugs :D
 
I seriously cannot fathom how FD thinks doing PP in solo is even allowed. That is a straight up MMO activity, which is being exploited when being played solo. In solo mode you have the ability to build risk free fortunes, which then can be used to purchase nomination. You can do preparations or expansions with no risk of interference by other factions, or destabilize another faction with no risk.

I am assuming FD doesnt have previous MMO experience, otherwise they would see the damage they are doing to Power Play be keeping the status quo..

I cant really say I blame the solo players for fighting so hard in regards to keeping the modes integrated, they are sitting on the golden goose.
 
I seriously cannot fathom how FD thinks doing PP in solo is even allowed. That is a straight up MMO activity, which is being exploited when being played solo. In solo mode you have the ability to build risk free fortunes, which then can be used to purchase nomination. You can do preparations or expansions with no risk of interference by other factions, or destabilize another faction with no risk.

I am assuming FD doesnt have previous MMO experience, otherwise they would see the damage they are doing to Power Play be keeping the status quo..

I cant really say I blame the solo players for fighting so hard in regards to keeping the modes integrated, they are sitting on the golden goose.

The only exploit going on is that of the forums with posts like this.
Also, instead of making assumptions - try doing a bit more reading, like the last 2 pages of this thread ;)
 
I seriously cannot fathom how FD thinks doing PP in solo is even allowed. That is a straight up MMO activity, which is being exploited when being played solo. In solo mode you have the ability to build risk free fortunes, which then can be used to purchase nomination. You can do preparations or expansions with no risk of interference by other factions, or destabilize another faction with no risk.

I am assuming FD doesnt have previous MMO experience, otherwise they would see the damage they are doing to Power Play be keeping the status quo..

I cant really say I blame the solo players for fighting so hard in regards to keeping the modes integrated, they are sitting on the golden goose.


You can go in solo too. Problem solved.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom