Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Daffan]

DarkWalker , Your arguments are hilarious.

Why would any trader or PVE player ever subject themselves to pirating, PvP fighting, blockades or anything? They don't. Which is exactly why Open swapping is bad because the people are interested in that field are boned. A further argument can be made to say that because there is no negative roles, there is no positive ones either - Anti-pks, bounty hunters, escorts and other sandbox emergent gameplay.

It's like asking a robber if he would ever want police around. Open would have police everywhere and Solo would not, no Robber would ever pick Open lest he be a masochist fool.

Admittedly, there is a good thing about the open swapping currently and that is people who don't like being randomly murdered can get away from it - but that is only a valid point as long as the Crime System and other Multiplayer gameplay systems are as bad as they are currently. There is no proper crime system, repurcussions or police/security to curve mindless killing and this is bad for long-term gameplay.

But the answer to this is not allowing people to escape Open on a whim, because that kills all the other valid gameplay at the same time.

BTW it is your right to keep claiming that ED did it this way because they wanted to and they probably did, but that does not mean it was a good decision either.

 

[Benedictus]

What "needs" do players in Open have that are, in some way, more important than those of players who play in the other two modes ?

Read again. I said:

"FD had intended in order to treat all game modes equal. But obviously FD was not clear that this kind of implementation, although equates the game modes, but the OpenPlayer would be penalized, because it is more difficult to be a Trader in Open than in Solo/Private, even if he was not forced to play in the Open."

Than I told:

"In order to achieve actual equality, FD should treat the players equally and not the modes. This means that not only the needs of solo and private players should be considered, but all.


After that I said:

"The solo players should keep their hiding place because they may have not even intend to be online at all. They wanted from the very beginning an offline single player mode. These are entitled to the Solo mode.

The private players also have the need to have a retreat, but they want to share this with their friends, to have a cooperative gameplay. They also have a right to it."

And then:

"But what needs the Openplayers? I just think that their needs have been neglected. Thats the reason why the thread here is so long.

The question should therefore rather be how to satisfy their needs without reducing that of the other. And throughout the thread, several approaches have already been mentioned, but they were all rejected by those that are not addressed."

So if you read this, why should you say then: "What "needs" do players in Open have that are, in some way, more important than those of players who play in the other two modes? "

I dont understand. Is it a language problem? A communication problem? Sorry for my english then.

 

[DarkWalker]

If you find yourself in a fair fight, either you, or your opponent - has done something wrong.

Which is why I doubt I will ever accept being in the same instance as you, or others that think like you. In a game, I either have a fair fight, or no fight; no other alternative is acceptable for me.

And that goes for when I have the advantage too. I abandon matches out of boredom if I start to wipe the floor with my opponents.

---

But what needs the Openplayers? I just think that their needs have been neglected. Thats the reason why the thread here is so long.

The question should therefore rather be how to satisfy their needs without reducing that of the other. And throughout the thread, several approaches have already been mentioned, but they were all rejected by those that are not addressed.

Which needs of Open players?

Meeting others? They can do that, no problem.

Having targets? Well, for a number of reasons they have to do with those that are willing to be their targets, who are already in Open, so nothing to do here. If they demand unwilling players be dragged (or enticed) into Open to serve as extra targets, then I sincerely believe they should be instead kicked out of the game in order to improve the experience for everyone else.

Compensation for some perceived higher risk? Not really justified if having said higher risk is the reason they have chosen to play in Open in the first place. Besides, as many are ready to point, PvP conflict is rare enough in Open that the actual effects on progression speed are barely noticed, if that much.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But the answer to this is not allowing people to escape Open on a whim, because that kills all the other valid gameplay at the same time.

which takes us back to removing freedoms from players to suit the play-style (or aspirational play-style) of a subset of the player-base.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Read again. I said:

"FD had intended in order to treat all game modes equal. But obviously FD was not clear that this kind of implementation, although equates the game modes, but the OpenPlayer would be penalized, because it is more difficult to be a Trader in Open than in Solo/Private, even if he was not forced to play in the Open."

Than I told:

"In order to achieve actual equality, FD should treat the players equally and not the modes. This means that not only the needs of solo and private players should be considered, but all.


After that I said:

"The solo players should keep their hiding place because they may have not even intend to be online at all. They wanted from the very beginning an offline single player mode. These are entitled to the Solo mode.

The private players also have the need to have a retreat, but they want to share this with their friends, to have a cooperative gameplay. They also have a right to it."

And then:

"But what needs the Openplayers? I just think that their needs have been neglected. Thats the reason why the thread here is so long.

The question should therefore rather be how to satisfy their needs without reducing that of the other. And throughout the thread, several approaches have already been mentioned, but they were all rejected by those that are not addressed."

So if you read this, why should you say then: "What "needs" do players in Open have that are, in some way, more important than those of players who play in the other two modes? "

I dont understand. Is it a language problem? A communication problem? Sorry for my english then.

If the needs of Open players is simply the need for unwilling targets for Open players then I doubt that Frontier will change the game to that extent.

Similarly, if Open players need a separate galaxy state that is unaffected by the other two game modes then I similarly doubt that Frontier will add one solely for Open (actually, presumably one each for Open on each platform that the game is released on).

 

[GluttonyFang]

Very wrong - you have not taken player skill into account. Not everyone is able to defend their ship against AI wings. When I used to play Solo quite a few times I would get jumped by a wing of 4 fighters - kobayashi maru or run away - no other course of action possible. This is of course possible in any mode and points out the games preferential treatment for groups of players who can wing up to avoid this scenario.

I already explained this scenario. Plus player skill is a variable accessible to all parties involved.

I'm glad you see the need for it but again you are not taking into account the vastly different skill levels of players in the game. Why should people who, for what ever reason, play solo get less of a game than you and I? They paid for the same game and yet in just the same way a non-Horizons owner cannot land on planets a solo player cannot 'hire' protection for either their RP or safety?

Lets turn it around a bit... If you and some Code types were flying in a wing what would you go for to steal from out of the following?

1. A lone player in a T9
2. A player in a T9 with 3 players in Vipers
3. A lone player in a T9 with 3 AI Vipers
4. A lone player in a T9 with 3 AI Condas
5. A player in a T9 with 3 player Condas

For me Wings is an incomplete mess until it allows for any player in any mode to hire AI to wing with and do what they wish - I might want to be a Pirate in solo with my mean crew of law breakers or I may just want to go on a trade run with some AI along for protection.

... Didn't I say I want to see Solo players get some form of the benefit of the wing feature...?

How am I degrading Solo players/mode in any way or shape?

Strawman again?

 

[GluttonyFang]

Not favoritism, but choice. The basic idea of how multiplayer would work in ED is that every player has the inalienable right to block anyone else, regardless of reason, from appearing in their game. Open is merely a congregation of the players that don't want to block anyone else.

Thus, there is nothing special about Open. It's just a choice about who you allow to play with you.

In a different game, based on different ideas and focused on a different potential player base, things would be different. If ED was about players competing to see who best pushes their favorite faction's influence across the map, then it might make sense to promote a different idea about fairness, with the intent of making the game more enjoyable for its target audience. But ED was never meant as that kind of game.

Did you read my argument in its entirety? I don't think I have to explain the rational coercion concept, again.

Perhaps. But pirating, smuggling, and other such activities in the game aren't breaking the social contract. They are supported aspects of the game, though, due to the rules laid out since the game was first presented, only among the players that choose to be subject to them.

If those things in game were breaking the social contact, like they are in the real world, then players would suffer actual penalties for doing them, things like rollbacks and bans.

I think your understanding and parallel between virtual gaming and real world seem to be somewhat confusing. There is action and consequence, piracy is still considered "illegal" even within the universe, it is only encouraged due the introduction of diverse gameplay. It has its share of consequence such as having a bounty that allows players to hunt/npcs to hunt said player. To ban and do rollbacks are actions taken against those that "cheat" or "grief," this level of management is outside of the character of the galaxy of ED.

That change in what is a part of the social contract and what isn't creates such a different environment that you can't even seriously consider extending the real world concepts of equality into the game world. The very concept of equality needs to be changed before being applied to the virtual world of the game because the virtual world and the real world are inherently unequal in ways that strike at the core of the concept.

There are parallels between the two, considering the idea of relation between subjects of sovereignty and sovereignty itself are involved. The way you structure the parallel seems arbitrary.

Or, in other words, to increase the enjoyment that players derive from the game.

Which means that, whenever those "bad" roles actually reduce the enjoyment, they should instead be suppressed. Which is the main argument for providing game modes where such activities don't take place, for the players that find the existence of such roles and activities to detract from enjoying the game.

Anything has a potential of reducing enjoyment, even NPCs.

Risk versus reward, in games, is a fallacy. A dangerous concept, even. Devs should use rewards to nudge players toward activities they will find enjoyable; blindly associating rewards with risk can lead, instead, to a game that pushes players into doing activities they dislike, and thus drives players away when it should be trying to attract them.

Grinding is an inherent concept that any game has, to various degrees for intersubjective interpretation. Risk vs reward is a prominent system that almost any game falls under.

Or, in other words, risk versus reward, in a game, should be at most a subordinate goal, meant to be fulfilled only when it serves to point players towards more enjoyable parts of the game, and discarded otherwise.

The developers would disagree with you considering the implementation of the current systems, but you are entitled to criticize them.

Everything is relative. Adding something to a single mode is functionally the same as adding it to the game as a whole but removing it from the other modes. Falls back into your own argument that removing things to achieve equality is a bad idea.

Yes, everything is indeed relative. However, providing something to a party to achieve equilibrium is most likely better than removing something from a party to achieve equilibrium. The latter removes facets to a game, the former enriches it.

For all intents and purposes, Open players in a wing can control their interaction with the galaxy even better than Solo players. Both for in-game reasons (predators tend to only go after lone prey, so players in a wing are safe from other players) and for metagaming reasons (it messes with the matchmaking, so meeting other wings becomes even rarer).

You haven't made a valid argument for Open player having more control over their environment. The predator that goes after the lone prey has to worry about another predator's emergence. The instancing system is flawed, but definitely competent enough to utilize the wing system to call in reinforcement from both victim and predator parties.

And, for many, unenjoyable. For me, player encounters that aren't guaranteed to end amicably only serve to ruin the mood and make the game worse.

No encounter will guarantee anything, Npc encounter can go sour, less predictably maybe, but still. That probability is accounted for on both sides.

Which, BTW, has nothing to do with the difficulty, but rather with potentially meeting a living and thinking person that is intent on ruining my experience. Events with identical results can result in completely different experiences depending on the motivations, or perceived motivations.

Your experience's quality has nothing to do with difficulty of your encounter, how is this relevant to difficulty of player encounter vs NPC encounter whatsoever...?

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

I already explained this scenario. Plus player skill is a variable accessible to all parties involved.

... Didn't I say I want to see Solo players get some form of the benefit of the wing feature...?

How am I degrading Solo players/mode in any way or shape?

Strawman again?

I did not say you were degrading them, just not openly taking into account a players skill - regardless of mode used. Yes it is a variable and as such the wings features needs to be expanded to take them into account. And yes I did point out that you had said you were in favour of the solo players getting wings

I'm glad you see the need for it

No strawmen here I can assure you. I just asked a simple question. You and you're buddies are well known pirates - I am a self confessed fan of the drama you folks cause - I would like to know if wings was expanded in a manner we have both said should be included how would that impact the gameplay of Code, given that the targets you folks go for may now be better protected. I ask because as I have sat in a system and watched a CG being completed there are wings and single ships all carrying loot.

Obviously the wings of players pose more of a challenge than just a single ship - but if that single ship had AI with him - would the type of ship/level of AI have any bearing on your choice of target... Additionally it would mean that bounty hunters could also now travel with AI wings - would that also not have a bearing on Piracy leading to it being more risky/fun/rewarding?

 

[obliterator]

which takes us back to removing freedoms from players to suit the play-style (or aspirational play-style) of a subset of the player-base.

The problem is that those "players" currently enjoy more freedom than this "subset of the player-base".

Having a better crime system in exchange of making it harder to escape a fight would be a good compromise. And fact is, what freedom would it take away from anyone? They'd still be able to do whatever they want in the given rule-set of the game. Being able to escape any dangerous situation has nothing to do with freedom.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I did not say you were degrading them, just not openly taking into account a players skill - regardless of mode used. Yes it is a variable and as such the wings features needs to be expanded to take them into account. And yes I did point out that you had said you were in favour of the solo players getting wings



No strawmen here I can assure you. I just asked a simple question. You and you're buddies are well known pirates - I am a self confessed fan of the drama you folks cause - I would like to know if wings was expanded in a manner we have both said should be included how would that impact the gameplay of Code, given that the targets you folks go for may now be better protected. I ask because as I have sat in a system and watched a CG being completed there are wings and single ships all carrying loot.

Obviously the wings of players pose more of a challenge than just a single ship - but if that single ship had AI with him - would the type of ship/level of AI have any bearing on your choice of target... Additionally it would mean that bounty hunters could also now travel with AI wings - would that also not have a bearing on Piracy leading to it being more risky/fun/rewarding?

As a pirate, if strictly rational, I don't want a challenge, I want a disabled Type 9, alone, filled with cargo for my taking.

However, that isn't fun, that is no challenge.

So if now bounty hunters and traders fly around with npc escorts, it will indeed make piracy more difficult, but much more interesting.

Personally I want a fun environment that challenge players, not an easy one.

 

[DarkWalker]

Why would any trader or PVE player ever subject themselves to pirating, PvP fighting, blockades or anything?

Because they enjoy the larger experience, including those elements, for those that do enjoy it.

For everyone else, they shouldn't subject themselves to those things, and should never be forced to endure those. Or at least not the player-initiated variations. You aren't entitled to force others to be your content.

Which is exactly why Open swapping is bad because the people are interested in that field are boned.

If they can only get their fun by ruining it for someone else, then it's a good thing they "are boned", as you say.

A further argument can be made to say that because there is no negative roles, there is no positive ones either - Anti-pks, bounty hunters, escorts and other sandbox emergent gameplay.

Fuel Rats, and other similar groups, would likely take issue with your argument that, without unwanted PvP, there are no positive roles to be had in the game.

And, in any case, emergent gameplay isn't the gaming holy grail that you paint it to be. It's only even desirable when the emergent experiences themselves are enjoyable. Which, for the unwilling victim, isn't true.

It's like asking a robber if he would ever want police around.

Good analogy, though not for your intended effect.

If the robber is only interested in the result, then yep, he doesn't want the police around. Having no opposition means he wastes less time doing something he doesn't seem to enjoy anyway and have more time to spend on the things he enjoys.

If the robber is interested in the challenge, if he sees his actions as a game, then yeah, he wants the police to be around, as without the opposition it becomes no fun at all. Which is particularly appropriate here, as we are discussing a game.

Path of least resistance arguments fail utterly with games, you know. In a game, the path of least resistance is always to just not play. You don't get anything worthwhile from it anyway.

Admittedly, there is a good thing about the open swapping currently and that is people who don't like being randomly murdered can get away from it - but that is only a valid point as long as the Crime System and other Multiplayer gameplay systems are as bad as they are currently. There is no proper crime system, repurcussions or police/security to curve mindless killing and this is bad for long-term gameplay.

But the answer to this is not allowing people to escape Open on a whim, because that kills all the other valid gameplay at the same time.

If you see all valid gameplay as being killed by the modes and free mode switching, then I'm afraid you have gotten the wrong game. Players being able to choose who they play with is the core idea around which ED's multiplayer was built. I doubt it will ever change, and I might even sue Frontier to get all my money back if they do change it, given how essential that is for my enjoyment of the game and how prominently advertised it was since the Kickstart.

 

[Benedictus]

Which needs of Open players?

Yes, what do they ask for the whole time?

Meeting others? They can do that, no problem.

Shall we once again talk about the problem with the Instances? Technical problems that cause Clans who wish to compete against each other, do not meet within an instance?

Having targets? Well, for a number of reasons they have to do with those that are willing to be their targets, who are already in Open, so nothing to do here. If they demand unwilling players be dragged (or enticed) into Open to serve as extra targets, then I sincerely believe they should be instead kicked out of the game in order to improve the experience for everyone else.

Yes, of course, in the Open there are also PvP players. And of course, they also need human targets. But yet we must not forget the following sentence I said before:

"The question should therefore rather be how to satisfy their needs without reducing that of the other"

I did not ask for unwilling players be dragged into open. So, can we discuss objectively now?

Compensation for some perceived higher risk? Not really justified if having said higher risk is the reason they have chosen to play in Open in the first place. Besides, as many are ready to point, PvP conflict is rare enough in Open that the actual effects on progression speed are barely noticed, if that much.

"PvP conflict is rare". But not rare enough. Otherwise solo and private players would not so much insist on their modes. So there is a risk. A trader in the open would be well advised to adapt its trade route. But the solo players dont. The trader in Solo could theoretically fly right through the area, which may be a war zone in the open. So we do not deny that there is a greater risk ....while trading, while Community Goal, while Powerplay. So there has been a reason why solo and private players have their retreat. So there is a reason why OpenPlayer are at a disadvantage compared to solo players. So why should they for their courage to take the risk, not be rewarded?

"The question should therefore rather be how to satisfy their needs without reducing that of the other"

Ok, is that all what Openplayer needs?

 

[CMDR i Tetsuo]

I'm a "PvE" player that plays in open, ie I don't hunt other commanders but I do enjoy the challenge of being hunted by a real person rather than an insta-spawned AI. I once fled across 5 systems in my DBS to escape a CMDR in a Python who was blocking my accesss to a CG, he managed to follow me the whole way and when he eventually caught and killed me it was the end of an exhilarating 30 minutes.

 

[Benedictus]

If the needs of Open players is simply the need for unwilling targets for Open players

We have still a communication problem. Maybe it is my english. If I say...

The question should therefore rather be how to satisfy their needs without reducing that of the other

...can it be intepreted, that I ask for unwilling targets for Openplayers? Maybe there is something with the Googletranslator?!

 

[Leto Thule]

Similarly, if Open players need a separate galaxy state that is unaffected by the other two game modes then I similarly doubt that Frontier will add one solely for Open (actually, presumably one each for Open on each platform that the game is released on).

Im sorry, but how, exactly, is this ANY different than asking for an "open PVE" mode? Its ok to cater to one group's wishes but not another? Allow me to summarize, for summary sake.

OPEN PVE proponents: Want an "open" mode, that will disallow PVP through some as-of-yet determined mechanic, be it through magic shielding or some type of automatic kick feature. Removing the "undesired" aspect from their chosen game mode.

OPEN proponents (some of them): Want open mode to be seperate from the influence of solo and groups. This would remove the "undesired" ability of solo/group players to affect their chosen game mode.

PVP proponents (some of them): Want to FORCE everyone into open mode and do away with solo and groups. This would remove the "undesired" ability for players to avoid the conflict they wish to impose upon them.

Whats the common denominator here? That any group is obviously going to campaign for its own interests, seldom seeing the points made my others in favor of their own. Asking for an open PVE mode is no different than asking for solo/groups to have influence removed from open play. All sides are asking for drastic changes to the core mechanics of how the game works.

Dont throw stones in your glass house.

 

[Jockey79]

Why would any trader or PVE player ever subject themselves to pirating, PvP fighting, blockades or anything? They don't.

Wrong, they do.

Quite a few times Open advocates have clearly stated they have enough targets in Open - So people are trading / exploring and so on in Open.

Personally I want a fun environment that challenge players, not an easy one.

You have Open Mode, where like minded (or uninformed players) are to give you what you wish.

Im sorry, but how, exactly, is this ANY different than asking for an "open PVE" mode? Its ok to cater to one group's wishes but not another?

Because there is an Open PvP Mode, Group PvP mode and a combat arena called CQC - PvP'ers have been catered to sufficiently.
Now it's time for PvE'ers to get their wishes, the ability to play multiplayer/ Co-op PvE.

 

[Majinvash]

We have still a communication problem. Maybe it is my english. If I say...



...can it be intepreted, that I ask for unwilling targets for Openplayers? Maybe there is something with the Googletranslator?!

Usual circle has come back.

YES Open needs victims to produce most types of interesting emergent game play.

Baddies need victims, to be baddies.
Goodies need baddies, to be goodies.

Sure you have the Fuel rats, that's nice and all. You get a post how someone was saved and its zzzzzz nice but zzzz but hey good job fuel rats!
You have the Buckyball racers, that’s also nice. They get to race each other. I am sure there will be a few races that will happen on planet now.
You have the Hudson truckers, who, truck…
The Codes operating Robinhood, where we dumped shiny stuff for newbies at Cleve Hub.

All of the other events that have resulted in anything mildly interesting have come from combat related activities.

Blockades – Hutton, various other CG’s
Educating Ed Episodes including last night. Sure it was partly scripted but he was the victim and people rallied around to protect him. ( Super rare and impossible to produce on mass )
The Vipers vs Cobras night. ( result of Hutton blockade )
Hostage taking of the T9 in the early days. The ambush and resulting hostage taking of a Fuel Rat and rescue attempt live on a popular FD Stream. Maddog?
Defence wings forming to push newbie killers out of Eravate

You don’t see many threads about how a private group, all got together to clear out a RES site of NPC’s do you?
Or that one solo player who could and did kill something, somewhere in something.

If you want emergent content, other than scripted events. You need people to be the victims.
About the only thing without would be if FD got the back ground sim working and people could actually fight over item/location that mattered.

People do not want to be victims ( generally ) that is what makes them a victim when something bad happens.

If they don't want this to ever happen to them, they have the options to stay out of open.

Reading back, The Code has produced so much content… Go us and you are welcome.

Majinvash
The Voice ofOpen

 

[GluttonyFang]

You have Open Mode, where like minded (or uninformed players) are to give you what you wish.

I have no dire problems with the status quo, because I understand its necessity and how it came about. However, what I do question is the facade of "equality of modes" the developers utilizes in their design philosophy.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Why would any trader or PVE player ever subject themselves to pirating, PvP fighting, blockades or anything? They don't.

I do.

Something something 8 characters.

 

[Deadspin]

Because there is an Open PvE Mode, Group PvE mode and a combat arena called CQC - Everyone has been catered to sufficiently.

Went ahead and fixed that for you, mate. PvE does still stand for Player verse Everything, right? Everything, by definition, would include other players and NPCs, right?
.
Go fly in Private Group if you can't stomach the idea of another human using you to calibrate the convergence of their pulse lasers.