Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Nonya]

The risk vs reward argument is dead, you get reward for risks that are part of what you are being rewarded for, not for risks you choose to take before/after the fact.

The "split" solo/open argument was never alive, the killer is private groups as it would be lame to prevent someone from open joining a private group but it would be equally lame to prevent someone in a big private group joining open.

The real problem is that some people in open think
1. Their fun levels are being held back by people who dont want to play with them.
- The solution to this is to appear fun to play with, no wait, its not about everyone having fun its about the person in open who wants to shoot at everyone having fun, there is no solution to this one.
2. People run to solo to avoid them
- As a small child you should have learnt that acting like a jerk makes people not want to play with you, this applies to being an adult also.
3. People gain big ships in solo and join open to make them feel small
- Grow up, its a game and the idea is to have fun not have the biggest ship.

Do I playin open? No, why? Mostly because the "open" community I see on this forum come across as elitest jerks and not in a good way.

Wrong on all counts. The problem is that with PP/CG there's no way to "stop" anyone undermining you without you sitting there 24/7 doing the grind.
If everyone were in open then there's a good chance you can influence them by blasting them out of your sky - they would see the "risk" in trying to undermine you.
But since some folks just don't want to play with others, Solo exists.
Fine. So be it. But split a copy off of the current Open background sim just for Solo players to have that has zero impact on the Open players.
Problems solved! Open players get what they want, Solo players get what they want! It's truly a win-win for everyone but FDEV who would have to rent out more virtual server space, which is the only true reason they haven't done it already - money, or lack thereof.
It would also make everything Braben and the other devs said about open versus solo play styles look bad, which is probably the true reason.
But now that FDEV is a publicly-traded company, let's let their yearly financial reports speak to that, shall we?

 

[Mouse]

Solo/Private Group turns PowerPlay into PowerlessPlay making it not even worth participating in.

Let's just call Solo/Private Group what it REALLY is: a Stealth Mode exploit.

I've seen it where folks drop into normal space when they see a CMDR is lining up to interdict them and then they exit the game to the menu and pop right into Solo mode and continue on into a station. I've dropped right onto their low wakes and they're gone - no high/low wake indicator at all. Over and over again. I'll chalk up some of that to some truly horrid network design decisions when it comes to the infamous "instancing" we all know about, but not every single one.

To quote a famous song: "Everybody wants to be a gangster until it's time to do gangster @#$%."

How can Solo/Private Group be a "stealth Mode" exploit when it is the basis of the game. Elite Dangerous is a PVE game with PVP option to it. And you do realize that Powerplay is a PVE mechanic and not ment to be something to be "stopped" by pvp but by countering.

While it does suck that there are some that go into open and bail at first sign of conflict and I don't understand people who do it, your complaint is an antagonistic railing post with no real basis.

As for your "famous song" Do you realize there are a large percentage of people who have posted that want nothing to do with open, or being a "gangster".

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong on all counts. The problem is that with PP/CG there's no way to "stop" anyone undermining you without you sitting there 24/7 doing the grind.
If everyone were in open then there's a good chance you can influence them by blasting them out of your sky - they would see the "risk" in trying to undermine you.
But since some folks just don't want to play with others, Solo exists.
Fine. So be it. But split a copy off of the current Open background sim just for Solo players to have that has zero impact on the Open players.
Problems solved! Open players get what they want, Solo players get what they want! It's truly a win-win for everyone but FDEV who would have to rent out more virtual server space, which is the only true reason they haven't done it already - money, or lack thereof.
It would also make everything Braben and the other devs said about open versus solo play styles look bad, which is probably the true reason.
But now that FDEV is a publicly-traded company, let's let their yearly financial reports speak to that, shall we?

You want to play a game but not how the game is played but by your own rules. There is no "your sky" it is everyones. The BGS is effected by EVERYONE and it has been stated that IT IS GOING TO STAY THAT WAY.

 

[Julissa Silver]

Solo/Private Group turns PowerPlay into PowerlessPlay making it not even worth participating in.

That infers that you only enjoy games when you can use those games to exert power over other players. In other words, you're the exact sort of person that people clamour to avoid playing with. Is that why you run out of people to destroy? You're too destructive for your own good and you've run out of toys. Sorry, but we don't feel like buying you more, we'd rather spend our money on fun things for us. (the analogy being - every player has currency that they invest in whatever activity they consider FUN. If you spend all yours blowing people up, at the cost of other people's currency, don't be surprised when they start cashing in their fun tokens elsewhere and you rapidly find your own well runs dry. Reap and ye shall receive, etc.)

To quote a famous song: "Everybody wants to be a gangster until it's time to do gangster related activities."

Never heard of the song. Anyway, nobody I know wants to be "gangster". Perhaps that's the reason we like to enjoy all modes? We're having so much fun NOT being gangsters that we don't like gangsters getting their hizzle all up in our bizzle while we do our tradizzle.

(Personally, I think the bacon conversation was so much better than my trying to speak street for the sake of this argument so, to take a break I'm off to get breakfast. Bacon style!)

 

[Nick S]

The real problem is that some people in open think
1. Their fun levels are being held back by people who dont want to play with them.
- The solution to this is to appear fun to play with, no wait, its not about everyone having fun its about the person in open who wants to shoot at everyone having fun, there is no solution to this one.
2. People run to solo to avoid them
- As a small child you should have learnt that acting like an ******* makes people not want to play with you, this applies to being an adult also.
3. People gain big ships in solo and join open to make them feel small
- Grow up, its a game and the idea is to have fun not have the biggest ship.

There is a lot of truth in this, but because this is human behaviour we cannot expect to change this by exhortation to behave better. In my view the incentive to go Solo (to avoid player interdiction and being killed by battle-hardened wings) is too great.

There should be an incentive to stay in Open (especially for PP players) or a disincentive to go Solo.

 

[Lann]

I got you. The incentive to stay in open, for example: 1% insurance.

The game punishes me if i die but the punish isnt so high to me to jump to solo.

I think all the problem with the solo/private/open game is the insurance mechanic and cargo loss.

Because you loose 10 minutes too with the trip; i mean, you need to get where you were before you were destroyed.

All problems are around time management i think...

I understand people who say solo and private groups destroy (a little) pp, because they cant combat a player who is in solo, simply by attacking them, which should be a possible counter attack to other players influence.

 

[Taimaru]

I also get the feeling that some (not all) open mode players want a stupid medal to say "Look I am better than you, I play in open where there is more risk. You on the other hand are just wimps for playing solo". They seem to be all about me, me, me, look at me, look how great I am.

I don't give a snakes's rear end how people play, how they got to elite, or how quickly they were able to buy their Anaconda, other than it's interesting to see the different ways people play. I can't even remember the names of the people who got to Elite in Frontier's competition - sorry - I would have to google it. This isn't a game about who is the best. There aren't leaderboards to gloat over. This is a game about being a lone pilot in a Galaxy with over 400 million star systems blazing your own trail.

I just play the game to have fun, the way I want to play. How I do that is not of any interest to anyone. I'm no-one special (even though my parents said I was ). I am just another one of the hundreds of thousands of players that enjoy playing Elite: Dangerous.

Once people start playing that way (just having fun) and not worrying about a fictitious medal that will never exist then Solo vs Open vs Groups becomes a non-issue. There are, however, other issues but that would be off-topic.

Just have fun everyone and forget about how other people play!

 

[Jesse Blue]

I free-solo climb. It's incredibly risky compared to the usual rockhounds that use pitons, harness, rope relays... yet I climb. No one pays me to do it. I accept the risk because my reward is getting to the top using nothing but my body's strength and the pride I feel in that.

I don't demand other-style climbers give up their tools. I don't even look down on them. I do not think I should be rewarded "extra" because of my chosen climbing style.

Again, people keep confusing personal satisfaction and self-fulfillment with rewards.

So now, let's add the missing reward component to your example. Now, a company pays 5k bucks to whoever reach the top of the mountain. Does it matter how you climb it? No, It only matters to reach the top and you can use whatever tools you see fit, or none at all. And the time matters? Neither, you can take as long as you wish to climb. And does it matters to be the first? No, Everyone who reach the top will get the 5k bucks.

Then comes, the inevitable question... Why the hell should I risk myself climbing without tools or safety equipment just to get the same reward as the others who do use it? Welcome to the Solo vs Open debate.

Oh don't forget that the usual rockhounds will tell you "Keep climbing solo-free dude, because you are not suffering more risks than us.... There is only risk if you fall out the mountain."

Because no one would read it - that is the simple answer.
Can I prove what I have said?
Sure - as I have been providing answers for months on this very topic;

I've read all the FD statements and answers on the matter, and you know what?

I still think FD is WRONG with their decisions on the matter. So yes, I perfectly know what FD said, and his intentions. I keep believing they are mistaken.

as it has been stated before, the "additional risk" arguement is false

No it isn't. However, I understand why you (plural) want to be false. But you wishing/calling for it be false, is very different from it really being.

I also get the feeling that some (not all) open mode players want a stupid medal to say "Look I am better than you, I play in open where there is more risk. You on the other hand are just wimps for playing solo". They seem to be all about me, me, me, look at me, look how great I am.

I could say the same from solo players. They some (not all) have developed the attitude of a resented ex-girlfriend who now only wishes harm to his former boyfriend. "Oh, so you hurt me on open? Now I will 'punish' you by switching to solo! Haha, Now suffer in your empty universe while I get exactly the same rewards as you but faster and safer, and you are powerless to stop me!!!... Muhahaha enjoy your barren, wasteland, without nobody to grief jerk, look how clever I am!!!!".
.
This is an atittude that frankly amuses me, for one simple reason: Let's say the 'clever' plan 'succeeds', and Open mode becomes a wasteland. What do you think will happen the morning that FD sees that out of 50.000 players connected, 49.600 are in solo/group and only 400 in open? Make a wild guess...
.
The problem will be probably exacerbated with the introduction of CQC, since the remaining players that stayed in Open for the legitimate PvP, will ultimately migrate to CQC, where they can find exactly what they want without the burdens of Open play.
.
At first, FD will try to implement emergency bandaids, like tightening security, increasing penalties for griefing... but all of those will ultimately fail because no matter what they come up, nothing can beat not having those potentially dangerous players around while keeping all the progress, benefits and rewards.
.
Lastly, FD will never openly admit that they were wrong about their past decisions on the solo-open question (no company would do). However... they will come up with a "Brand, new, shiny feature for the game that will enrich player immersion and game experience overall. This new feature only works in open mode, since it requires a large number of players interaction, but we are confident in that will vastly improve our game enjoyment for everyone".
.
The incentiv...errr... "The new feature" will slowly attract people back again to open. But don't worry, we'll have another threadnought about "The unfair advantages of open players vs solo players".
.
So, for those with that attitude, please, continue doing your good work. By all means keep encouraging people to leave Open for Solo, as it only accelerates the proccess. The more players bleed from one mode to the other, and the larger the gap between modes, the more evident and visible the problem will be, to ultimately reach a point in where FD can't longer keep their heads buried on the sand.

 

[Cody]

Sheer profundity!

 

[EdzUp]

Personally I do think there should be more open related missions and competitions to keep the momentum going.

I play in a group mainly as NPC AI sometimes is fun and nowhere near as challenging as blasting players into the stratosphere, one thing that does come to light at present is this mode is very tedious so I might step back into the light for a while

 

[Cody]

Post on the topic or don't post.

No more light relief - fair enough!

 

[Seonid]

There should be an incentive to stay in Open

Why? All that says is that you consider anyone that does not play in one of the three legitimate (by design) games modes are inferior to you and should be punished because you personally don't like it.

 

[PhazonAran]

I've read all the FD statements and answers on the matter, and you know what?

I still think FD is WRONG with their decisions on the matter. So yes, I perfectly know what FD said, and his intentions. I keep believing they are mistaken.

Then why are you here ? Did you buy the game hoping that you could make one of its core design change ?

 

[Roybe]

Wrong on all counts. The problem is that with PP/CG there's no way to "stop" anyone undermining you without you sitting there 24/7 doing the grind.

You are halfway there! Stop holding yourself back! Just accept the fact that this is how the game is designed...and no one will change this basic, fundamental idea! Then the game becomes something entirely different...and freeing. Complete understanding of this one fact begets a manner of personal freedom so large...that I cannot think of one other game that has ever allowed players so much freedom.

 

[Cody]

<chortles>

 

[Tuub t Tute]

.
What do you think will happen the morning that FD sees that out of 50.000 players connected, 49.600 are in solo/group and only 400 in open? Make a wild guess...

..

Mike Brookes "Hey DBOBE, check the figures, we got 50,000 players connected yesterday across all 3 modes!"
-
DBOBE "Excellent news! Digestive Biscuit?"...
-

 

[Roybe]

Originally Posted by Jesse Blue
I've read all the FD statements and answers on the matter, and you know what?

I still think FD is WRONG with their decisions on the matter. So yes, I perfectly know what FD said, and his intentions. I keep believing they are mistaken.




So, what do you expect to change by being so vociferous a proponent against the designers design. They are the ones that wrote this program...and one of their ideas is that all ways players play will be equal across the modes...and that PvP will only occur through PvE contests. They allow people to shoot each other...but have given a disincentive to do it. They do not want it to be a 'viable' way to play the real game...it is just there for people to RP with. Pirates and Bounty Hunters are not about player interaction...but NPC interaction.

 

[Jesse Blue]

Why? All that says is that you consider anyone that does not play in one of the three legitimate (by design) games modes are inferior to you and should be punished because you personally don't like it.

To the contrary, what that says is that he considers one of the game modes INFERIOR to the others, that's why he needs an incentive to stay on it.

 

[Seonid]

that's why he needs an incentive to stay on it.

Nobody needs an incentive for anything, you either play the game as you want to play it, or you don't. Simples.

 

[Roybe]

To the contrary, what that says is that he considers one of the game modes INFERIOR to the others, that's why he needs an incentive to stay on it.

I think some of the private players here would agree. Open is inferior...not because of the game design...but because of the inhabitants of the mode....and their misunderstanding of what really matters within the game. PvP interferes with the game because it is not an integral part of the game, so it is much better to play PvE and avoid the people playing against the games design.

 

[Mouse]

Again, people keep confusing personal satisfaction and self-fulfillment with rewards.

So now, let's add the missing reward component to your example. Now, a company pays 5k bucks to whoever reach the top of the mountain. Does it matter how you climb it? No, It only matters to reach the top and you can use whatever tools you see fit, or none at all. And the time matters? Neither, you can take as long as you wish to climb. And does it matters to be the first? No, Everyone who reach the top will get the 5k bucks.

Then comes, the inevitable question... Why the hell should I risk myself climbing without tools or safety equipment just to get the same reward as the others who do use it? Welcome to the Solo vs Open debate.

Oh don't forget that the usual rockhounds will tell you "Keep climbing solo-free dude, because you are not suffering more risks than us.... There is only risk if you fall out the mountain."

OK, you don't seem to understand so we shall try it this way. You look at the mountian and decide to climb it for that 5k. Now you chose how you climb it. You could climb when no one else is around, or with friends, or when others are attempting to climb it, some will be helpful, some will try and cut your rope. No matter how you do it, the company is offering the 5k, but the CHOICE... there is that word you keep ignoring.. the CHOICE on HOW you climb the mountian is yours.

I've read all the FD statements and answers on the matter, and you know what?

I still think FD is WRONG with their decisions on the matter. So yes, I perfectly know what FD said, and his intentions. I keep believing they are mistaken. .

You think FD is wrong but you chose to buy their game anyways? And now you want to change it to fit how you believe they should have done it?

No it isn't. However, I understand why you (plural) want to be false. But you wishing/calling for it be false, is very different from it really being. .

Sorry you are incorrect but nice try. Adittional Risk is absolutely false, Hhowever, I understand why you (plural) want it not to be false. Because if it isn't false then you may have a glimmer of an arguement. So you keep trying to push it hoping to make it true so that you have some legitimacy.

I could say the same from solo players. They some (not all) have developed the attitude of a resented ex-girlfriend who now only wishes harm to his former boyfriend. "Oh, so you hurt me on open? Now I will 'punish' you by switching to solo! Haha, Now suffer in your empty universe while I get exactly the same rewards as you but faster and safer, and you are powerless to stop me!!!... Muhahaha enjoy your barren, wasteland, without nobody to grief jerk, look how clever I am!!!!"..

Wow now talk about ... Solo players don't want to "harm" anyone in open. Nor do they "suffer" in an empty universe. They have the same universe you do. You failed to understand what Taimaru was saying, while proving their point with your "reply".

This is an atittude that frankly amuses me, for one simple reason: Let's say the 'clever' plan 'succeeds', and Open mode becomes a wasteland. What do you think will happen the morning that FD sees that out of 50.000 players connected, 49.600 are in solo/group and only 400 in open? Make a wild guess....

There is no "clever" plan. If Open becomes a wasteland the only people who are at fault are some of the players in open.

The problem will be probably exacerbated with the introduction of CQC, since the remaining players that stayed in Open for the legitimate PvP, will ultimately migrate to CQC, where they can find exactly what they want without the burdens of Open play. .

If they do that is their choice... wow that pesky word again. People play how they want. They don't play to convenience you.
.

At first, FD will try to implement emergency bandaids, like tightening security, increasing penalties for griefing... but all of those will ultimately fail because no matter what they come up, nothing can beat not having those potentially dangerous players around while keeping all the progress, benefits and rewards..

"Nothing can beat not having those potentially dangerous players around while keeping all the progress, benefits and rewards" Nice veiled insult, sadly it failed mainly because most if not all see what your saying for what it is.. crap. Playing other modes besides open does not = "no risk" or even "less risk". It only means people can play a game they like without having to deal with a certain element who decided the best way to play a game was to blow other players up.
.

Lastly, FD will never openly admit that they were wrong about their past decisions on the solo-open question (no company would do). However... they will come up with a "Brand, new, shiny feature for the game that will enrich player immersion and game experience overall. This new feature only works in open mode, since it requires a large number of players interaction, but we are confident in that will vastly improve our game enjoyment for everyone".

The incentiv...errr... "The new feature" will slowly attract people back again to open. But don't worry, we'll have another threadnought about "The unfair advantages of open players vs solo players"..

They were never wrong in the first place.. all this is, is your opinion and arrogance because they are not changing the game to fit your special way of thinking. And FD is not doing any "incentive" for people to play in open.
.

So, for those with that attitude, please, continue doing your good work. By all means keep encouraging people to leave Open for Solo, as it only accelerates the proccess. The more players bleed from one mode to the other, and the larger the gap between modes, the more evident and visible the problem will be, to ultimately reach a point in where FD can't longer keep their heads buried on the sand.

You utterly fail to understand that many players who comment on the attitude that people like you want medals and rewards.. PLAY IN OPEN. They are not trying to drive people out of open.. they dont' want to.. people like you do it enough.