Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[GluttonyFang]

The problem is that it comes across as criticising players for their choice with the options that the developers have offered.

Oh, if that's the case, I'll clarify that it isn't my intention at all.

I've always stated in many places in this forum that people should be respected for the choices they make in game. I did just recently, too (in general discussion):

People, people, please:

If someone chooses to play in private group/solo, it is their choice, they are looking for an controlled environment/selective environment to play ED that they paid the same amount of money for as anyone else. It does not make them carebears of any sort, just another player.

If someone chooses to play in open, it is also their choice, they are seeking more unpredictable interaction with other players and random encounters that have more entropy. This is usually a harsher environment, and some find it entertaining, it doesn't make them griefers automatically.

Can we please just respect one another's playstyle and stop flinging things at one another?

Edit:

Actually come to think of it, I kind of stated this on the very first page and the very first reply to this very thread @_@

 

[Lestenio]

Hah, oh well, it just shows that you have no understanding of my arguments, oh well, I guess some people are special...

I guess I am special too. I have no idea what you have been on about for the last few pages.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I guess I am special too. I have no idea what you have been on about for the last few pages.

Oh, it's okay, being special is a good thing.

 

[DCLXVI your God]

Oh, it's okay, being special is a good thing.

Yes it is.

 

[DarkWalker]

Well, the idea goes back to the point I think I made a while back about Open having an open system and Private/Solo have a closed system, open system has dependency and closed system has comparatively less dependency. Of course, I understand the idea that players' choices are to be respected, but that's kind of equivalent to the argument of separate but equal, and lands us at Plessy v. Ferguson 1896. At least that's how I see it.

It's a game. Meaning that what's enjoyable for the player takes precedence over what is right for society. And, for the record, I always choose to never depend on others in my gaming time; despite enjoying company, I find mutual dependence to be stressful and just not enjoyable.

If it was the real world we would have no choice but to rely on each other. On the other hand, we would be punishing the "bad elements" enough that most would give up on doing whatever they were thinking of before the attempt, and of the rest those caught in the act would be severely enough punished to be removed from social contact for a good while, so things would be far less, let's say, wild, and most people wanting to play a "bad" role would be unable to do so.

Open is faced with "more" risk, therefore having more assets than Solo to counteract with the risk. However, that isn't the central point I am arguing, but instead that the concept Open depends on is very vulnerable when compared to Group/Solo. I am challenging the idea of "equality" introduced by the developers.

I'm quite aware of the legal concepts around equality and inequality. I just don't think they should be applied to a game, not even a MMO, and particularly not a MMO where players are allowed to take on "bad" roles. There's an inherent contradiction in even making the attempt of bringing equality into play when you decide that players are free to rob each other at (virtual) gunpoint, and more so when the tools that would allow players to properly deal with those elements, like they would be dealt with in the real world, are intentionally held back from the players because they would ruin the game for those playing the "bad" roles.

And, in any case, the whole allure of Open is the extra "risk", the unpredictable element of meeting other players without any external control over their behavior. Providing any kind of incentive or bonus for playing in that mode would only serve to attract to it players that don't really want to be there, players that would be happier in some other mode but are in Open just for the bonuses, accelerating burnout and making the game as a whole worse.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We can then make the same argument about closed/group mode, they are exclusive by nature, as well. However, players with these mentalities do not have to complain for that they exclusivity is being protected by FD and the design philosophy.

I have made it clear, my purpose in my argument is to challenge the idea of "equality of modes" the developers brought forth, which I think I have accomplished my task.

To clarify, do I want things to change? Of course, anyone want things to go their way. However, I understand the economical strain and playerbase issues changes will cause, thus I am merely criticizing the the philosophical standpoint of the developers, not the actual development of the game.

Despite my name being recognized more with piracy than anything else, I actually enjoy mining just as much as piracy, therefore it's not like I'm completely disgruntled with the game, for that PvP isn't the only I do in this game. I merely wish to voice the concern and criticism of a portion of the playerbase might have against FD, and I have done that.

Edit:

I remember when limpets first came out with 1.3, before I got busy with being the coordinator of Archon Delaine and what not, I even abandoned my duties in The Code for a brief period just to mine all by myself in Delkar...

I was so happy...

Oh dear someone in The Code is going to read this and kill me >_>...

Solo / Private Groups are exclusive in the sense that they permit players to play among a finite population. They are inclusive in the sense that players therein affect and experience the exact same shared galaxy state as every other player - it's not just players in Solo / Private Groups that affect the game for players in Open , it's players in Open affecting the game for players in Solo / Private Groups.

You have indeed argued with the intent of challenging 'the idea of "equality of modes" the developers brought forth' - not convinced that it did much though.

Players are entitled to challenge the philosophy of the developers - however, the developers are equally entitled to maintain their course in the development of the game. I'm sure that Frontier are more than peripherally aware that some PvP players are particularly unhappy with:

1) the fact that players have three game modes to choose from;
2) commanders can move between game modes on a session by session basis;
3) commanders are not locked to a particular mode;
4) there is a single shared galaxy state that is experienced and affected by all players;
5) .... and other items relating to PvP which would be off-topic for this thread.

Best of luck in your next mining foray - bear in mind that players on your friends list are more likely to be instanced with you....

 

[GluttonyFang]

It's a game. Meaning that what's enjoyable for the player takes precedence over what is right for society.

That argument goes either way, open mode players are players, too. And the conflict of interest was no resolved through providing equality, but favoritism. (Again, not criticizing the players)

I'm quite aware of the legal concepts around equality and inequality. I just don't think they should be applied to a game, not even a MMO, and particularly not a MMO where players are allowed to take on "bad" roles. There's an inherent contradiction in even making the attempt of bringing equality into play when you decide that players are free to rob each other at (virtual) gunpoint, and more so when the tools that would allow players to properly deal with those elements, like they would be dealt with in the real world, are intentionally held back from the players because they would ruin the game for those playing the "bad" roles.

Well, real world allows "bad" roles, as well, and both virtual and real world do offer consequence for those that break the social contract. In the game, the encouragement of "bad" roles is to increase diversity of gameplay, and their consequence should scale with the reward provided. Which cycles back to the risk vs. reward argument that I refuse to play around with too much due to its intersubjective nature as I have pointed out on the very first reply to this thread.

And, in any case, the whole allure of Open is the extra "risk", the unpredictable element of meeting other players without any external control over their behavior. Providing any kind of incentive or bonus for playing in that mode would only serve to attract to it players that don't really want to be there, players that would be happier in some other mode but are in Open just for the bonuses, accelerating burnout and making the game as a whole worse.

What you're describing is multiplier difference, which I already addressed:

Geebus that's a lot of questions.

Open depends on something different than Group/Solo as I've pointed out, and the mentality of the two populations depend on different matters. Former feels unsatisfied due to influence from another mode while the latter feel entitled to influence the former mode under different conditions. But the former mode finds those conditions unacceptable due to the former mode's players' mentality and setting. The latter mode is privileged and protected in their mentality and has no conditions to be given consent to from another portion of the playerbase. I'm not giving pointers to which is "right" or "wrong" since that is completely unproductive, but I'm pointing out the difference in dependency between the two groups, and the idea of "equality" the developers seem to champion.

Solving the problem will create more problems in the sense that separation of the modes is an economic burden and counter the original design as Maryland have pointed out. Multiplier difference in monetary reward between modes will create indignation in the latter portion of the population and force them to feel the frustration some former population feels right now.

I'm here to question the idea of "equality" the devs advocate, that's all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That argument goes either way, open mode players are players, too. And the conflict of interest was no resolved through providing equality, but favoritism. (Again, not criticizing the players)

I play (predominantly) in Open - I'm not looking for any bonuses for doing so - playing among other players is the reward for playing there.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Solo / Private Groups are exclusive in the sense that they permit players to play among a finite population. They are inclusive in the sense that players therein affect and experience the exact same shared galaxy state as every other player - it's not just players in Solo / Private Groups that affect the game for players in Open , it's players in Open affecting the game for players in Solo / Private Groups.

You have indeed argued with the intent of challenging 'the idea of "equality of modes" the developers brought forth' - not convinced that it did much though.

Well, that argument can be made in either direction, for that Open and Solo/Group have the two distinctive mentalities within the population segregated by modes. Open mode can be considered inclusive, as well, in its entropy.

I think there's a fundamental difference in what developers consider equality and what I consider equality, but that's why there's criticism for pretty much everything, it's the gap between conceptualization and interpretation of certain ideals/ideologies.

Players are entitled to challenge the philosophy of the developers - however, the developers are equally entitled to maintain their course in the development of the game. I'm sure that Frontier are more than peripherally aware that some PvP players are particularly unhappy with:

1) the fact that players have three game modes to choose from;
2) commanders can move between game modes on a session by session basis;
3) commanders are not locked to a particular mode;
4) there is a single shared galaxy state that is experienced and affected by all players;
5) .... and other items relating to PvP which would be off-topic for this thread.

Best of luck in your next mining foray - bear in mind that players on your friends list are more likely to be instanced with you....

Absolutely, and I hope I get to mine on planets soon <3

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I play (predominantly) in Open - I'm not looking for any bonuses for doing so - playing among other players is the reward for playing there.

Well, that's one way to look at it, it doesn't do enough to balance the scale of modes and their mentalities in my opinion, but diversity is a good thing, as long as parties have the desire to reonciliate without destroying differences.

 

[Jockey79]

"Equality in the modes".....

Right, okay then.

Frontier, you'd better remove wings and all wing features and bonuses - Solo mode does not get them, so it is not equal that Groups and Open have it easier then Solo. Solo players cannot rely on a wing to defend them versus NPC wings like the other modes can.

Also Solo players cannot utilise voice comms to their advantage, so better rip that out while we are at it.

Funny how you never flip your "equality" argument the other way around isn't it

 

[Seonid]

I have over 1700 hours in Open and I still don't understand this whole "risk" thing that keeps cropping up. Do I need to check under the bed for it?

 

[GluttonyFang]

"Equality in the modes".....

Right, okay then.

Frontier, you'd better remove wings and all wing features and bonuses - Solo mode does not get them, so it is not equal that Groups and Open have it easier then Solo. Solo players cannot rely on a wing to defend them versus NPC wings like the other modes can.

Also Solo players cannot utilise voice comms to their advantage, so better rip that out while we are at it.

Funny how you never flip your "equality" argument the other way around isn't it

Haha, well there's a few fallacies in here:

Removing things to achieve equality is a bad idea, adding things, on the other hand, is a better solution. But then you have economic cost to bear in mind, so that's another problem.

Solo is the most controlled environment out of all three modes, therefore it doesn't need the wing feature to counter the relative risk it faces (oh god please don't let this turn into an argument about risk, it's intersubjective, I know). Solo players don't have to worry about another group of players swooping in while trying to defeat a wing of NPCs.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I have over 1700 hours in Open and I still don't understand this whole "risk" thing that keeps cropping up. Do I need to check under the bed for it?

Meh, might find something fun down there, why not.

 

[Leto Thule]

Gluttonyfang, your posting is magical.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Gluttonyfang, your posting is magical.

Shining, shimmering and splendid!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Solo is the most controlled environment out of all three modes, therefore it doesn't need the wing feature to counter the relative risk it faces. Solo players don't have to worry about another group of players swooping in while trying to defeat a wing of NPCs.

On the other hand, players have more advantage in a wing, than they need it to defend themselves against the incident of other player's wings swooping in.

And imagining 3 hands, on the other other hand, if there are no other groups of players in a wing, one does not need a wing to defend itself against that wing.

 

[Jockey79]

Haha, well there's a few fallacies in here:

Removing things to achieve equality is a bad idea, adding things, on the other hand, is a better solution. But then you have economic cost to bear in mind, so that's another problem.

But adding things for 1 subset of people is also bad and does not promote "equality" either.

Solo is the most controlled environment out of all three modes, therefore it doesn't need the wing feature to counter the relative risk it faces

So, a Solo gets pulled over by a wing of 4 is equal to an Open player in a wing of 4 getting pulled over by the same NPC wing of 4 is "equal" and "controlled" ?

I think your scales are off, by a lot.

Solo players get no support or help from anyone, yet face the same "risk" as Group and Open players from the NPCs.
So my point stands, no support = more risk, as more risk is not fair according to you, then the advantage from Group / Open needs to be removed (or NPC wings added for Solo players)

Solo players don't have to worry about another group of players swooping in while trying to defeat a wing of NPCs..

Well, if someone does not want a wing of players kicking seven bells out of them, why are they in open ?
You can play socially in private groups - Mobius is over 16,000 players now. You're just as likely to bump in to people there as you are in Open Mode.

Also, as the modes are nothing more than a matchmaking setting controlling who you can see, why does Solo and Open have instant join buttons on the menu but Groups have to jump through hoops to get theirs?

Solo and Open are just auto join groups on the main menu, so why can we not have Mobius, Hutton Truckers, Canonn, EDC or any other group set to auto join on the main menu as well? Wh do Solo and Open get privileges when other groups do not?

This game is not looking very fair or "equal" to anyone is it....

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…

I'm here to question the idea of "equality" the devs advocate, that's all.

Do I understand you correctly that you are questioning the "equality" of a system that treats all participants equally (as in the rules apply the same to all) and not differently based on their perceived difference (as in different rules to counter a perceived disadvantage)?

I think a gaming forum isn't the best place to discuss such things.
It's an interesting topic for a conversation at a table with some good food and drinks.

 

[Shaamaan]

"Equality in the modes".....

Right, okay then.

Frontier, you'd better remove wings and all wing features and bonuses - Solo mode does not get them, so it is not equal that Groups and Open have it easier then Solo. Solo players cannot rely on a wing to defend them versus NPC wings like the other modes can.

Also Solo players cannot utilise voice comms to their advantage, so better rip that out while we are at it.

Funny how you never flip your "equality" argument the other way around isn't it

No, no no no!

I mean, I GET the argument, but rather than removing things, lets ADD things into the game. AI wingmen (with different ships / loadouts / capabilities) with some basic communication UI would go a long way to making wings useful for solo players as well. Plus it feels like it would make things more interesting EVERYWHERE, not just solo.

 

[GluttonyFang]

On the other hand, players have more advantage in a wing, than they need it to defend themselves against the incident of other player's wings swooping in.

And imagining 3 hands, on the other other hand, if there are no other groups of players in a wing, one does not need a wing to defend itself against that wing.

Right, which means that the wing system isn't somehow creating a disadvantage or impeding upon Solo gameplay.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Right, which means that the wing system isn't somehow creating a disadvantage or impeding upon Solo gameplay.

Players in a Wing are at less risk from a given situation involving NPCs than any one of them alone. That's a relative advantage to the multi-player modes in the game.